179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) Re: Re: (idm) Re: Re: Re: (idm) Re: ?

1 message · 1 participant · spans 1 day · search this subject
1996-05-27 20:40Sugatis & Co Re: (idm) Re: Re: (idm) Re: Re: Re: (idm) Re: ?
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1996-05-27 20:40Sugatis & Co>On Sat, 25 May 1996, rephlex wrote: > >> This is a pointless post, a bit like a log. Then
From:
Sugatis & Co
To:
Date:
Mon, 27 May 1996 13:40:48 -0700
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: Re: (idm) Re: Re: Re: (idm) Re: ?
permalink · <v01530500adcfc1cf0894@[205.138.245.33]>
quoted 3 lines On Sat, 25 May 1996, rephlex wrote:>On Sat, 25 May 1996, rephlex wrote: > >> This is a pointless post, a bit like a log.
Then, some time later, someone replied:
quoted 6 lines Is this post self-referential, or are you replying to a post that happened>Is this post self-referential, or are you replying to a post that happened >some time ago? > >If the latter is the case, it is customary to include a part of the post >to which you're responding, so as to clue in the people reading what the >f*ck you're on about.
To which I say: Pardon me, but I am of the opinion, which I shall now express in full view of all who may be concerned about this post and its subsequent thread, that the original message, quoted above, by Rephlex@blahblah.co.uk was, as it says, utterly and completely pointless, and, by continuing to reply to it and question its intended meaning, we are missing the point entirely of the message, in that there is none. It is really quite silly, if you ask me, that we are continuously discussing this most pointless of messages, and I firmly believe that MrRephlexPerson must be quite literally laughing his ass off right now because of this. Maybe that was the message's _real_ intention. [keep] BOYCOTT [ing] SHELL OIL http://home.inreach.com/sugatis/index.html