Tim Fairchild said on 09.04.2007 14:05:
On Monday 09 April 2007 21:53, Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 09:57:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 01:25:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on
On Monday 09 April 2007 21:53, Peter Reaper wrote:
> Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 09:57:
> > Peter Reaper wrote:
> >> Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 01:25:
> >>> Peter Reaper wrote:
> Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
> > Peter Reaper wrote:
> >> Michael Adams said on 08.04.20
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 09:57:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 01:25:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Y
Tim Fairchild said on 09.04.2007 08:14:
Yeah, sorry, I spose I just don get real hunged up on correctness in emails. I
spect them to be a bit like talkin. :)
All-rightee then. We be L33t d00d. Did anyone say "babylon"? Awe, who
cares! ;-)
--
Regards,
Peter Reaper
The browser you can trust
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 01:25:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Separ
On Monday 09 April 2007 16:00, Peter Reaper wrote:
> Tim Fairchild said on 09.04.2007 00:55:
> > On Monday 09 April 2007 04:46, Peter Reaper wrote:
> >> Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
> > *** on about the punctuation in an email just makes you look
> > like a smartass. Not tha
Tim Fairchild said on 09.04.2007 00:55:
On Monday 09 April 2007 04:46, Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
*** on about the punctuation in an email just makes you look
like a smartass. Not that the other posts don't help.
Umm, *** on about being disinterested i
Larry Gusaas said on 09.04.2007 01:25:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Separate* three or more it
Peter Reaper wrote:
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Separate* three or more items in
a series with a comma." That sou
On Monday 09 April 2007 07:13, Peter Reaper wrote:
> Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
> > Peter Reaper wrote:
> >> Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
> >
> >
> >
> >>> The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Sepa
Larry Gusaas said on 08.04.2007 21:48:
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Separate* three or more items in a
series with a comma." That sounds pretty mandatory
Peter Reaper wrote:
Michael Adams said on 08.04.2007 15:59:
The quoted article does not say it is mandatory in any way anywhere.
Yes it does. Re-read it. It says: "*Separate* three or more items in a
series with a comma." That sounds pretty mandatory to me.
http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#
12 matches
Mail list logo
