|
|
|
date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:03:22 +0100,
group: uk.net.news.config
back
Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated prediction
Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:01:40
uk.net.news.config jms
>These are two totally separate issues.
Quack, quack, oink, bang.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:20:41 +0100
author: Wm...
|
Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated prediction
Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:03:53
uk.net.news.config jms
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:20:41 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:01:40
>>uk.net.news.config jms
>>
>>>These are two totally separate issues.
>>
>>Quack, quack, oink, bang.
>
>
>Don't try and prove you are a fuckwit at every turn - we know it.
We're here to amuse. We'll also get our group so you can spend as long
as you like toying with yourself while we talk about bicycles. Your
masturbation shouldn't really be of interest.
>If you have something sensible to say - which I doubt - then just say
>it.
>
>(Feel free to explain if you think that they
clearly
>are not separate issues)
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:26:41 +0100
author: Wm...
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:25:31 +0100
"Wm..." wrote:
> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:56:50 <20090803135650.0f139256@bluemoon>
> uk.net.news.config Rob Morley
>
> >On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:23:31 +0100
> >"Wm..." wrote:
> >
> >> [1] after a wedding some years ago both a cousin of mine and I got
> >> reports that there had been a fight at the reception. Much aunt
> >> talking later we worked out it had been he and I dancing.
> >>
> >Him and me, FFS, not he and I.
>
> are you sure?
>
No. :-)
date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:59:21 +0100
author: Rob Morley
|
Re: Moderated group voting procedure
At 23:59:21 on Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Rob Morley wrote
in <20090803235921.0ec5d704@bluemoon>:
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:25:31 +0100
>"Wm..." wrote:
>
>> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:56:50 <20090803135650.0f139256@bluemoon>
>> uk.net.news.config Rob Morley
>>
>> >On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:23:31 +0100
>> >"Wm..." wrote:
>> >
>> >> [1] after a wedding some years ago both a cousin of mine and I got
>> >> reports that there had been a fight at the reception. Much aunt
>> >> talking later we worked out it had been he and I dancing.
>> >>
>> >Him and me, FFS, not he and I.
>>
>> are you sure?
>>
>No. :-)
Wm... is correct. The verb "to be" takes the nominative.
(To unnc only. God knows why there's been all this cross-posting
between unnc and unnm; it's not allowed, chaps, it's not cricket!)
--
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee. If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:03:22 +0100
author: Molly Mockford
|
|
|
