ehird wrote:
>No... because you actually said that you came off hold.
Yes, I did. I was mistaken about what you were saying "don't be so
sure" about. Sorry.
-zefram
I wrote:
>Is that a threat to falsify your log?
Ah, I've looked at the context again, and this interpretation doesn't
make sense. (I thought the "don't be so sure" was replying to "e
reactivated emself".)
-zefram
On 7 Oct 2008, at 20:12, Zefram wrote:
ehird wrote:
Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
No... because you actually said that you came off hold.
others can back me up.
--
ehird
ehird wrote:
>Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
>> AGAINST x 5. "Private" is not a legal value of the publicity switch,
>> so this proposal does nothing.
>>
> Oh dear, it should be Foreign, shouldn't it? Unfortunately
On 7 Oct 2008, at 19:37, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby vote:
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
FOR
Can't, you're inactive.
Don't be so sure...
--
ehird
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:37 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > I hereby vote:
> >
> >> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
> > FOR
>
> Can't, you're inactive.
No e isn't, e reactivated emself in #really-a-cow.
--
ais523
Zefram wrote:
> I hereby vote:
>
>> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
> FOR
Can't, you're inactive.
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
>
> AGAINST x 5. "Private" is not a legal value of the publicity switch,
> so this proposal does nothing.
>
Oh dear, it should be Foreign, shouldn't it? Unfortunately I was in so
much o
9 matches
Mail list logo
