Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: "Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:31:21 -0700
...sticks 'n stones Roger, sticks and stones....
Imhotep
Im, you know my earliest degree was in philosophy.
Hence, when you elected to post a near slanderous personalization
that in no way whatsoever addressed the topic I saw it as only one
more of your trivializing, irrelevant postings.
To such the best, if not only, retort is irrelevance.
Anyone that knows me has seen me in pinning MS down on some
discomfort spot at some time or another. Your expressed views
in you gross insults are so far from reality I should not have allowed
them to be justified by so long a reply.
--
ra
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: imhotep
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- References:
- Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: Michael Davis \(Comcast.Net\)
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: Michael Davis \(Comcast.Net\)
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: imhotep
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- From: imhotep
- Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- Prev by Date: Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- Next by Date: Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- Previous by thread: Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- Next by thread: Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies
- Index(es):