Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]

From: Paul Jakma (paulj at domain itg.ie)
Date: Tue 23 May 2000 - 18:11:15 IST

Next message: lbedford at domain wbtsystems.com: "Re: [ILUG] 2nd-level subdomains of TLDs revisited"
Previous message: John P. Looney (Kate): "Re: [ILUG] annoying site of the day"
In reply to:(deleted message) David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Next in thread: David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Reply:(deleted message) David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Tue, 23 May 2000, David Murphy wrote:

> does to me. Moreover, the Linux Journal has a commercial interest in
> people believing Linux is superior to NT - I wouldn't trust the LJ any
> less or any more than any other publication or organisation.
>

which was a point i was trying to implicitely make. both sides were
biased.

--paulj

Next message: lbedford at domain wbtsystems.com: "Re: [ILUG] 2nd-level subdomains of TLDs revisited"
Previous message: John P. Looney (Kate): "Re: [ILUG] annoying site of the day"
In reply to:(deleted message) David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Next in thread: David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Reply:(deleted message) David Murphy: "Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:15 GMT