Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement

David E. Smith on 29 Jan 2002 00:13:59 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement

To: <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
From: "David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:13:51 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <200201281853190240.000BCECE@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Well, the first kick was recognized, and I'll claim that as precedent
> for the second and third...

The first kick was recognized because it was cool and funny. The second
and third kicks are just silly, and therefore not recognized.

...dave

Follow-Ups:
- Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
  - From: Donald Whytock

References:
- Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
  - From: Donald Whytock

Prev by Date: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Next by Date: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Previous by thread: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Next by thread: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread