169:B

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 07:28:16 PDT

Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:A"
Previous message: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:A"
In reply to: Gallivanting Tripper: "169:A"
Next in thread: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:B"
Reply: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:B"
Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:B"
Maybe reply: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:B"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Gallivanting Tripper wrote:

> I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's
> business.

Crumb.  Last time I made that mistake it led to a War.  I withraw my proposal
and substitute an one for which 165 is replaced with 169 everywhere that it
appears.  And a vote FOR the proposal.  And I shoot myself in the head.

Aron Wall

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 14:28:37 GMT

Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:A"
Previous message: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:A"
In reply to: Gallivanting Tripper: "169:A"
Next in thread: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:B"
Reply: Anton Cox: "Re: 169:B"
Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:B"
Maybe reply: Gallivanting Tripper: "Re: 169:B"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST