Re: Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted]

2002-02-04 Thread Paul S
n, 04 Feb 2002 08:24:18 +0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted] > > At 23:57 1/02/02 +0800, a subscriber wrote: >> A very good friend of mine is after a G4. > > And you are telling us this because? > > Sigh, I'm estimating my respons

Re: Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted]

2002-02-04 Thread Bob Howells
Goodall-Smith wrote: > I may have been able to source information from somewhere > else... If I had the knowledge of where the somewhere else is and what > exactly I > was looking for. This would be easy for someone who already knows. Not all of > us > do > Yes, Well! The only way you fi

Re: Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted]

2002-02-04 Thread Goodall-Smith
Onno Benschop wrote: > At 23:57 1/02/02 +0800, a subscriber wrote: > >A very good friend of mine is after a G4. > > And you are telling us this because? > > Sigh, I'm estimating my response will result in a flurry of messages > > Here goes with my brief contribution... Not intended to anger anyon

Re: Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted]

2002-02-04 Thread Neil Blake & Associates
Onno Lighten up. Not everyone has your number of years experience with Macs, your exquisite command of netiquette or your succinct turn of phrase in composing messages. I enjoy your rapier like comments on most occasions, but your comments today run the risk of turning away first and sometime use

Posting to WAMUG - Was: [G4 wanted]

2002-02-04 Thread Onno Benschop
At 23:57 1/02/02 +0800, a subscriber wrote: A very good friend of mine is after a G4. And you are telling us this because? Sigh, I'm estimating my response will result in a flurry of messages, many of which will add some irrelevant comment, some will display anger, a few personal replies say