ML Archive: Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!

Subject:	Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!
From:	Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:01:13 -0700

No reason to apologize for arguments. People learn from arguments . . . ifthey're smart.


Tris

By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative, if that's the way I am coming
across.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, (continued) Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, jlamadoo, home account Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Jim Couch Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, jlamadoo, home account Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Garth Wood Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Larry Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, DaEyeGuy Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom Scales Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, DaEyeGuy Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom Scales Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom Scales Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tris Schuler <= Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom A. Trottier Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tris Schuler [OM] Re: Pete Hamill column--NY Daily News, Tris Schuler Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Charles Loeven Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, DaEyeGuy Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom Scales Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Mickey Trageser Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Hans van Veluwen Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Bill Stanke Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Chris Barker

Previous by Date:	Re: [OM] B&W thoughts, John Pendley
Next by Date:	Re: [OM] [OT] Afganistan thinking, Chris Barker
Previous by Thread:	Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom Scales
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] OTF: Reliable? NOT!, Tom A. Trottier
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Olympus-OM