M
Mike Andrade
I knew you had your face in Susan's ass...now your thinking of analOh, my mistake, I see now that you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Correct.
Bugger off.
sex.
I knew you had your face in Susan's ass...now your thinking of analOh, my mistake, I see now that you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Correct.
Bugger off.
Susan, you do one helluva of a job. I for one, wouldn't begin to thinkSusan said:Frank said:Neither, Susan, and as I said, no criticism of your work was intended.
Just trying to suggest possible labour saving improvements.
I apologize for lumping you in with John F. (who posted with malice
aforethought). IMO however your suggestions display a lack of
understanding of the work that must be done. . .
The present process is:
1. post new/revised program descriptions [newsgroup participants]
2. post ONE list of eligible programs [point person]
3. nominate/second programs that are on the list [newsgroup participants]
4. post ONE ballot (list of programs that were nominated and seconded)
[pooint person]
5. cast ballots [newgroup participants]
6. count the ballots, select preliminary Pricelessware List [point person]
7. discussion, final selection [newsgroup participants]
Posting single lists for nominations/voting makes the tracking process
much easier than it used to be. Your "simplification" seems to call for
a return to chaos. Your proposal ignores the elephant in the bedroom -
the task of preparing/checking/revising program description. That's the
issue that must be addressed and resolved.
Susan
yawnMike Andrade said:I knew you had your face in Susan's ass...now your thinking of anal
sex.
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:21:14 -0400, Susan Bugher
Would you like to explain your thinking behind the assumption that
John, a regular poster to the group, posted with malice aforethought ?