Author: Pete Galati
Date: 17:05:20 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 15:53:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 15:48:59, Jari Huikari wrote: > >>On July 17, 2000 at 15:23:12, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >> >>>"I agree with pete galati - x should know better" >>>"I agree with pete galati - (however) pete galati should know better" >>>"I agree with pete galati - (I) should know better" >>>"I agree with y - pete galati should know better" >>> >>>Who is x? Who is y? *Is* Pete Galati or isn't he? Or is he just a bit Galati? >>> >>>I'm thoroughly confused by this kind of ambush posting. >>>But hey, I suggest the best answer is: >>>Pete Galati doesn't know better. >> >>No, no! Brian agrees with Pete Galati. Together they (Brian and Pete) should >>know better than Jerry (alone). This is just an example of democracy. Simple, >>eh? > >Why don't we just go with pure pronouns, and then it can mean anything you like. >;-) I am not a pronoun, I'm strictly an amateurnoun. But I play a pronoun on TV. Him
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.