On Sep 7, 7:53=A0pm, krw <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <7270e300-fc2d-4cbf-8127-0027932a2b0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> > On Sep 6, 10:32=A0pm, Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 3:18=A0pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > > > > We're done. =A0Go play.
>
> > > > Is that the Royal "We"? =A0Or are you presuming to speak for me?
> > > > _You_ might well be done. =A0But I have given you cause to doubt
> > > > that I would be.
>
> > > "We," Robert, means you and I. =A0Without a "me," there is no "we."
> > > That's it. =A0Perseverate from now until kingdom come. =A0Whatever
it=
is,
> > > if it involves you, it won't involve me.
>
> So you've been saying (but NOT doing). =A0Bye now!
>
The discussion *was* about why the group is dead. You've been
trolling my posts for years. See that you keep *your* promise.
There, now I *have* called you a troll. Have fun name-calling back.
> > One final thought: when I make little errors quoting poetry from
> > memory, it sure does make it a ***** to find them with google, don't
> > it?
>
> Not as stupid as it is to copy incorrectly form Google in the first
> place.
>
Well, dimwit, the *French* quote wasn' t actually poetry. I'll let
you and the other expert figure it out.
Robert.
|
