Re: There's no 3-legged animal

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:25:14 EDT

Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"

Previous message: george murphy: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Maybe in reply to: George Hammond: "There's no 3-legged animal"
Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Reply: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>>When I politely informed him he was an idiot, >>

That is interesting. How does one go about that? Even more -- how does
one conclude that?

John Burgeson (Burgy)

http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"
Previous message: george murphy: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Maybe in reply to: George Hammond: "There's no 3-legged animal"
Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Reply: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:31:38 EDT