Subject | Re: Laguna Seca is booked! |
From | -hh |
Date | 2012-03-27 20:11 (2012-03-27 11:11) |
Message-ID | <ab0bdee0-88be-4970-9a40-e9c8e12f1563@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | ed |
Followups | Nashton (2d, 3h & 18m) > -hh |
edI easily could have claimed that I was just being "smart", but to make such a claim can very without also providing any substantiation would ring hollow.
On Monday, March 26, 2012 4:16:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:-hhed
On Mar 26, 5:12=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com>wrote:On Monday, March 26, 2012 1:21:59 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
...Alan Baker
No.pedantic, aren't you? =A0;P-hhed
Beats projecting.
it's not projecting to point out the truth (remember alan is the guy that just asked "That actually is a possibility, isn't it?" to "everyone else is overcompensating but you, you were just being smart").
As I said above, I easily could have claimed "Yes", but to make such a claim can very without also providing any substantiation would ring hollow. In retrospect, I think it was a fair decision appropriate for its day and no regrets.Alan Baker
Quite obviously, he had one when he NEEDED one.quite obviously, the mention of a timeline for when it's a fad is something he thinks is relevant, otherwise why bring it up, right? =A0:P-hhed
It doesn't absolutely resolve the objective question of 'need', but its a pretty reliable indicator.
a simple yes would have sufficed, no need to justify below. =A0:P