Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0
From: Mary K. Kuhner (mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 16:27:59 PDT
- Next message: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Previous message: Jesse F. W: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeremy D. Selengut: "167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Next in thread: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Reply: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
You know, you're comparing yourself with people many of whom
have been involved with this thing for 167 rounds! Don't
sweat it. All of us have commited botched rules, misguided
rules, rules that caused more trouble than they were worth,
rules invalidated by their own restrictions....
In other words, hang in there.
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com
(not currently an active player due to time constraints)
- Next message: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Previous message: Jesse F. W: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeremy D. Selengut: "167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Next in thread: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Reply: Anton Cox: "Re: 167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST