On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior,
But it was, that's what
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Ulterior is certainly not
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:28:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
(...)
I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this
thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here.
No need for all that work. You can get the
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior,
But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in
my own language but it is still perfectly correct.
Maybe, but
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior,
But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use
in my own
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:55:47 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems
to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new.
You are a human being with freedom of action. If you want not to read this
thread, don't
On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote:
(careful when quoting...)
* Camaleónnoela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
In linux.debian.user, you wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote:
(careful when quoting...)
* Camaleónnoela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
In
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
In this post, indicated for is probably the wrong term for the
context. It roughly means prescribed. It is unclear what you really
mean, but I would guess capable of.
Mmm... yes.
How about
9 matches
Mail list logo
