The perils of "search & replace" in documentation.

"Mark Wallace" wrote

I don't care if it's small. You still shouldn't talk about it around children.

--oTTo--

Good Lord, no. They're a Major Player!

What?!? They haven't postponed Married with Children /again/, have they?

Damn those Fox executives! Why can't they just let the schedule /be/?!?

You're quite right. My apologies.

This is a language group; we should be discussing tongues.

"Mark Wallace" wrote in

Thank you.

The important question is: Which cheek? Remember, *family* newsgroup.

--oTTo--

I...

Nope. Can't be done.

And cunning linguists.

Mark Edwards

"Mark Edwards" wrote

Conjugating.

--oTTo--

Oh, it's you again.

Maybe this time you can answer my question: What's so funny about bookpro.com?

What does this have to do with Classical Literature, Mark?

-- Chris McG. Harming humanity since 1951. "Uh-oh. Looners." -- Darla

And you're not about to let her get away with that, right?

She did, but what difference would it make if she simply posted nonsense? You'd rise to the bait either way, as you've proven time and time again.

Still wondering what you find so amusing about that domain name. (C'mon, don't be shy. We know you're just itching to trot out your literrrarrry credentials. Go for it, Edmund Wilson.)

Stalk much?

My computer seems to be doing that automatically.

-- Chris McG. Harming humanity since 1951. "Uh-oh. Looners." -- Darla

Wow! Now that's impressive. I'll bet you're the only person on these chat rooms who can make such a claim.

Got a mouse in your pocket, Chuckles?

Back to "self-congratulatory," I see.

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote

Technically, aren't you are writer?

--oTTo--

"Chris McGonnell" wrote

Erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.

--oTTo--

"Chris McGonnell" wrote

Incorrect way to address a stranger, McGonnell.

--oTTo--

"Classic non sequitur."

Whoosh!

Barbara. See the text you quoted.

Whereas you take the enormous amount of time required to, oh, I don't know, remove 97 lines of multiply-quoted text from your reply. Oh, wait, no you don't; I'm thinking of me. Sorry.

Now, then, let's begin examining our unstated assumptions, shall we? Let's start with "Barbara is trying to impress me".

After that we can look at "Barbara has access to a time machine", one of the unstated assumptions behind the assertion that her initial posting in this thread, a reply posted on June 12 to a message posted on June

12, took her a week to write. Another being "Barbara thinks I'm worth spending a week drafting a reply to".

Of these three assumptions, only one has the slightest probability of being true. Barbara, could you go back to 1996 and tell me to buy shares in Apple? Thanks.

Golly, can I have your autograph?

That "we", would that be your multiple personalities, or what? What group of people are you acting as spokesperson for?

"Utter lack of any explanation whatsoever is explanation enough." Got it. Another words, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Augh. Nails on a chalkboard.

That's a terrible sentence. Thank cheese this is just Usenet, where anything goes. We'd all do well to remember that F Scott Fitzgerald didn't write his books, either.

Sheesh. I can't even find her webpage, let alone nasty reviews. Got any links? I'm curious, and you're yellow.

Stacia wait, I told that wrong.