13 Feb
2007
13 Feb
'07
7:29 p.m.
>> does mean
Err, "does not mean" ... ya know what I meant.
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Koblentz [mailto:evan at snarc.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:25 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: IBM and the Holocaust
>> What this has taught me that corporate monied
interests are amoral,
looking only to increase profit. Similarly, governments
largely
exist to serve their own interests and, for the most part, not the interests
of the governed.
Typical that at least one cctalker would reply with such idiocy. Grant
asked for opinions about the book itself. There's absolutely no reason to
go OT and include a moronic political opinion too.
Why can't people understand that "on-topic and off-topic posts" in the list
header does mean we've got carte blanche to say any assinine thing?