wrote:

> Do you realize that the age of a message has absolutely no bearing
> on whether somebody can or should reply to it?

No, I don't realize it, because it isn't true. Replying to a week-old
message in a thread the died long ago is stupid, plain and simple.

If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
new thread.



Brian Rodenborn

wrote:

> Do you realize that the age of a message has absolutely no bearing
> on whether somebody can or should reply to it?

No, I don't realize it, because it isn't true. Replying to a week-old
message in a thread the died long ago is stupid, plain and simple.

If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
new thread.



Brian Rodenborn

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:56:54 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Do you realize that the age of a message has absolutely no bearing
> > on whether somebody can or should reply to it?
>
> No, I don't realize it, because it isn't true. Replying to a week-old
> message in a thread the died long ago is stupid, plain and simple.
>
> If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
> new thread.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Lighten up Brian. Obviously Bob was buzzed.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:56:54 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Do you realize that the age of a message has absolutely no bearing
> > on whether somebody can or should reply to it?
>
> No, I don't realize it, because it isn't true. Replying to a week-old
> message in a thread the died long ago is stupid, plain and simple.
>
> If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
> new thread.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Lighten up Brian. Obviously Bob was buzzed.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:56:54 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Do you realize that the age of a message has absolutely no bearing
> > on whether somebody can or should reply to it?
>
> No, I don't realize it, because it isn't true. Replying to a week-old
> message in a thread the died long ago is stupid, plain and simple.
>
> If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
> new thread.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Lighten up Brian. Obviously Bob was buzzed.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

: If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
: new thread.

: Brian Rodenborn

Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
reason to start a new one.

: If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
: new thread.

: Brian Rodenborn

Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
reason to start a new one.

: If you had something new and enlightening to say on the subject, start a
: new thread.

: Brian Rodenborn

Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
reason to start a new one.

wrote:

> Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
> reason to start a new one.


Yes, there is a reason. It's pointless to add a reply to a dead topic. I
was being nice about the "start a new one". The real solution was to not
post pointless and outdated crap.




Brian Rodenborn

wrote:

> Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
> reason to start a new one.


Yes, there is a reason. It's pointless to add a reply to a dead topic. I
was being nice about the "start a new one". The real solution was to not
post pointless and outdated crap.




Brian Rodenborn

wrote:

> Start a new thread? How stupid is that! The thread already exists, no
> reason to start a new one.


Yes, there is a reason. It's pointless to add a reply to a dead topic. I
was being nice about the "start a new one". The real solution was to not
post pointless and outdated crap.




Brian Rodenborn