% tim lupfer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Dec 17 at 01:39PM Thorsten Haude wrote:
>
> > * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-12-09 20:12]:
>
> could your attribution string be any more inane? I mean, come on, an
> asterisk? they just aren't IN anymore.
How about @? @'s always in :)
Oh, I k
* tim lupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17-12-2001 15:08]:
| On Dec 17 at 01:39PM Thorsten Haude wrote:
|
| > Hi,
|
| > * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-12-09 20:12]:
|
| could your attribution string be any more inane? I mean, come on, an
| asterisk? they just aren't IN anymore. and brackets in
On Dec 17 at 01:39PM Thorsten Haude wrote:
> Hi,
> * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-12-09 20:12]:
could your attribution string be any more inane? I mean, come on, an
asterisk? they just aren't IN anymore. and brackets in conjunction
with a dating mechanism so unfamiliar and unamerican? that
