Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Madigan
Or you to understand basic hygiene. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Madigan wrote: > > You might have a chance at winning for a change. > > > > Nooo, I would never win against a nose. That would > be like asking you to > understand irony. > > > > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Ricardo Aráoz
Michael Madigan wrote: > You might have a chance at winning for a change. > Nooo, I would never win against a nose. That would be like asking you to understand irony. > > --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Pete Theisen wrote: >>> On Wednesday 21 February 2007 2:32 am, Adam >> Bu

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Madigan
You might have a chance at winning for a change. --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pete Theisen wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 2:32 am, Adam > Buckland wrote: > > > > Hi Adam! > > > > Found it, thanks. > > > > It is too new for snopes to have anything on it. I > smell a

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Ricardo Aráoz
Pete Theisen wrote: > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 2:32 am, Adam Buckland wrote: > > Hi Adam! > > Found it, thanks. > > It is too new for snopes to have anything on it. I smell a fabrication here, > however. Even if it is true, it would not have been a direct Bush decision to > include or not

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Madigan
I hope you're not accusing our Anti-American friends of mis-characterizing an event, are you? --- "Michael Oke, II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quite a stretch. From what I read it appears that > he was excluded > because of what he intended to wear, not because he > was an amputee. > > ::m

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Pete Theisen
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 12:54 pm, Michael Oke, II wrote: > Quite a stretch. From what I read it appears that he was excluded > because of what he intended to wear, not because he was an amputee. Hi Michael! I remember when I was in the service I got to go anywhere I wanted to, you just ha

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Oke, II
Quite a stretch. From what I read it appears that he was excluded because of what he intended to wear, not because he was an amputee. ::m Ed Leafe wrote: > Military amputee uninvited from Bush event because the press would > see him with no legs > > http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Ed Leafe
On Feb 21, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Adam Buckland wrote: > Try : http://tinyurl.com/35lamb > > It looses the - at the end of the line when it splits. Oh my goodness! Here I am complaining about amputees forcing us to see the results of our trite sayings, and I end up displaying an amputated

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-21 Thread Pete Theisen
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 2:32 am, Adam Buckland wrote: Hi Adam! Found it, thanks. It is too new for snopes to have anything on it. I smell a fabrication here, however. Even if it is true, it would not have been a direct Bush decision to include or not include a person on a guest list, for

RE: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-20 Thread Adam Buckland
Try : http://tinyurl.com/35lamb It looses the - at the end of the line when it splits. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Theisen Sent: 21 February 2007 05:07 To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness! On

Re: [OT] All that unpleasantness!

2007-02-20 Thread Pete Theisen
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 8:56 pm, Ed Leafe wrote: > Military amputee uninvited from Bush event because the press would > see him with no legs > > http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/military-amputee-uninvited- > from-bush.html Hi Ed! Getting a "Not Found" error. Guess he isn't there.