RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia)

To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia)
From: "Mark Jones" <jones118@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:40:26 +0100

 Ken Hanly
<
>
> COMMENT: After reading this I just wonder if I can trust anything you say.

I've responded offlist to Ken Hanly  outburst, but if anyone wants to see
what I think of it let me know privately.

Mark Jones

References:
- Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia)
  - From: Ken Hanly

Prev by Date: carrying capacity in California
Next by Date: natgas imports to ease crisis?
Previous by thread: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia)
Next by thread: Re: Gold
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thread context:
- Re: RE: Re: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), (continued)
  - Re: Re: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), Michael Perelman Fri 29 Jun 2001, 14:28 GMT
  - Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), Ken Hanly Sat 30 Jun 2001, 01:56 GMT
    - Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), Michael Perelman Sat 30 Jun 2001, 02:08 GMT
    - RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), Mark Jones Sat 30 Jun 2001, 07:40 GMT
- RE: Re: re 180,000 MW new capacity: Update, Mark Jones Fri 29 Jun 2001, 09:55 GMT
  - <Possible follow-up(s)>
  - RE: Re: re 180,000 MW new capacity: Update, Mark Jones Fri 29 Jun 2001, 10:15 GMT
- RE: A postmodernist reading of Henwood? Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Vulnerable Planet (was Re: suburbia), Mark Jones Fri 29 Jun 2001, 09:54 GMT
- The benefits of Thatcherism, Keaney Michael Fri 29 Jun 2001, 08:38 GMT

[ Other Periods | Other mailing lists | Search ]