On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:46:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <1549093.eedtUgUtGH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The Microsoft Munckin also left out the URL so that people can't read the
>> context, such as:
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Shane Coyle said,
>>|
>>| December 29, 2008 at 9:48 am
>>|
>>| Running to airport, but some clarifications - firstly, my sense of humor
>>| doesnâ??t port well to text - it is very dry, the fight club / india protest
>>| things were tongue-in-cheek (and I never meant to imply that â??we - BNâ?? had
>>| the people arrested, I sometimes poorly sentences construct.
>> `----
>>
>> He hadn't kept track and he thought people were arrested (far from it).
>>
>> He also made a sarcastic remark, but people didn't get it.
>
> Note that Roy also leaves out the URL. Why is that, Roy? Did you not
> want people to read the rest of that comment? Here's the whole comment:
>
> Running to airport, but some clarifications - firstly, my sense of
> humor doesnâ??t port well to text - it is very dry, the fight club /
> india protest things were tongue-in-cheek (and I never meant to
> imply that â??we - BNâ?? had the people arrested, I sometimes poorly
> sentences construct.
>
> Liability concerns aside, of which there are many, this post in
> particular seemed to exemplify how this site has degenerated more
> into personal attacks and arguments in both directions than
> substantive discussions on the issues.
>
> Maybe I just desperately need a vacation. See yâ??all on the 5th (and
> it is me ).
>
> And here's the URL:
>
> <http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/28/thank-you-joseph/#comment-56851>
>
> And Roy, was Shane being sarcastic when he apologized to Jimmi Hugh for
> BN slandering Hugh? Was he being sarcastic when he criticized you for
> not taking out the slander? This was in early January, well after the
> above post.
Twitter is not Shane Coyle.
Twitter is William H. Hill.
|
|
