you have used both dead and old, and no i am not proving it, dont't have
time for that, someone who cares can look it up, Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:29:33 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2011 11:36 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> > On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 22:11:13 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/29/2011 10:32 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> That means that the thread is not worth replying to any more. It
>> >>> means too many people have responded and whatever is it that is being
>> >>> discussed has been beat to death.
>> >>
>> >> Just as I started reading it. That figures. It was amusing while
>> >> it lasted.
>> >
>> > Remember the sf rule - you're not allowed to reply to a thread more
>> > than 48 hours old.
>>
>> I'm always in violation. Too much work, schoolwork, my news
>> provider/reader doesn't sort right, etc etc more etc excuses.
>
> He's wrong as usual. 2 days dead, not old - which I said is a
> practice I try to adhere to, albeit not very well at times. I was
> complaining about the hit and run morphs (gee, I wonder who that could
> be?) who resurrect LONG dead threads in terms of months and years and
> try to get them going again as if we don't have anything to talk about
> here. He was ****ed that I said something and he can't let it go.
> Poor little pouty baby. It's easy to imagine how unpopular he was in
> school.
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.