🚀 go-pugleaf

Follow-ups set.

In article <8d5gv3$j6e$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,  <pickle@vortex.psiu.cx> wrote:
>In git.general A young Drew Barrymore <ram@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
>> In article <8d2p5m$q1h@catapult.gatech.edu>,
>> Capablanca  <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>>>purposes of war, and are now used in other contexts. Guns were designed
>>>for the purposes of war, 
>> That's debatable, but not terribly important
>
>War...not terribly important?  Whatever floats your boat...

There was one pronoun in my sentence (That).  What modified that pronoun?
(is debatable).  Now, what in the sentence I was replying to is
debatable-- war or the notion that guns were designed for war?  (the
notion).  So, why would you think that the antecedent of the pronoun
"that" would be war?



>>>But
>>>since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
>>>anyone, 
>> Are you mental?
>
>#define sarcasm

Either 
a) you're trying to be clever while saying that he was being sarcastc, or 
b) you're trying to be clever while announcing that you're about to be
sarcastic.

if a: I assure you he wasn't being sarcastic.  just dumb.
   b: You shouldn't have to announce sarcasm.  It's not really sarcasm,
      then, anyway...


>
>Alright, everybody aboard the logic train.  Yes, _everybody_.  Now, what can we
>use guns for?
[...twiddle...]

If you're going to reply to my messages, you might as well reply to what I
said.

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "MATH IS NECTAR!  PROOFS ARE AMBROSIA!" --phat_joe