Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/04/2014 02:04 (04/04/2014 13:04) |
Message-ID | <2ntrj9t0jka72jnt8fqvgtu0n84tl4umje@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (5h & 34m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanIsn't that what the present argument is about?
In article <lh50in1182m@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN wrote:SandmanPeterNSavageduckSandman
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described so?
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened everytime I've used the word.
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.
I'm waiting.--