BHA: RE: de-onts

To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: BHA: RE: de-onts
From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:39:43 -0500

Hi all,

Let me add my voice to the growing chorus of de-ont sceptics. The thing that
troubles me is that there is an unlimited number of de-onts for every ont.
Pierre is not in the cafe, but then again he's not Franciois, a table, or
standing on his head. Besides saying something is not something it's not,
what does all this de-onting buy us?

	Marsh Feldman



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

Follow-Ups:
- Re: BHA: RE: de-onts
  - From: Mervyn Hartwig

References:
- BHA: de-onts
  - From: Richard Moodey

Prev by Date: BHA: de-onts
Next by Date: Re: BHA: RE: de-onts
Previous by thread: BHA: de-onts
Next by thread: Re: BHA: RE: de-onts
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thread context:
- Re: BHA: negativity wins, (continued)
  - Re: BHA: negativity wins, Ruth Groff Mon 26 Feb 2001, 06:51 GMT
    - BHA: de-onts, Richard Moodey Mon 26 Feb 2001, 16:55 GMT
      
      BHA: RE: de-onts, Marshall Feldman Mon 26 Feb 2001, 19:39 GMT
      
      Re: BHA: RE: de-onts, Mervyn Hartwig Tue 27 Feb 2001, 01:54 GMT
      
      Re: BHA: RE: de-onts, viren viven murthy Tue 27 Feb 2001, 03:36 GMT
      
      Re: BHA: RE: de-onts, Mervyn Hartwig Wed 28 Feb 2001, 17:10 GMT
      
      For Ruth was Re: BHA: de-onts, Gary MacLennan Mon 26 Feb 2001, 21:58 GMT

[ Other Periods | Other mailing lists | Search ]