| Date | From | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| 2001-04-1103:33 | EggyToast <youn0394@umn.edu> | Re: [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch At 09:19 PM 4/10/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>HOLY SMOKES… |
| 2001-04-1103:34 | Brian M. Cass <kingmob@nmt.edu> | Re: [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch Point being this guy criticizes ae for, ah nevermind, I think its… |
| 2001-04-1021:11 | <muziq@IONET.NET> | [idm] Cornfield; was Crunch > ...are much more
> interesting, and Confield should top them all.
Because?
I… |
| 2001-04-1103:19 | Brian M. Cass <kingmob@nmt.edu> | [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch HOLY SMOKES
This guy blasts ae then goes on to laud Plaid… |
| 2001-04-1103:55 | lazlo <muziq@ionet.net> | Re: [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch Brian, what part of "new Plaid" or "interesting" didn't make sense… |
| 2001-04-1110:29 | Mxyzptlk <jpklein@telocity.com> | Re: [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch Um. If you count "Trainer" and "Double Figure" (the CD which was… |
| 2001-04-1105:27 | Brian M. Cass <kingmob@nmt.edu> | Re: [idm] Re: Cornfield; was Crunch I stated why "interesting" and Plaid don't mesh. Plaid's cds… |