Re: Evidence for Big Bang Theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Gil Hardwick: "Re: Why do you read sci.anthro?"
• Previous message: Gil Hardwick: "Method and disputation (was Re: Incest taboos)"

In article <Admin.0z2s@oubliette.COM>, Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM) writes:
>Valid point! Gil, are you reading this? Could I have marked my post
>as being sarcastic in any less simple of a way?

Oh yes, I'm reading it Eric. I just don't know yet what relevance it
may have to anything I have been discussing here.

>Yes, they were actually *Venn* diagrams in a sort of ASCII kind of
>way. Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention, at least you
>didn't start off by blowing me away for an "inaccuracy!" Heaven forbid!

Eric, you could as easily have written, "Yes, you are correct it is
indeed a "Venn" diagram. I was hasty and in error. Please accept my
apology".

I mean, it is not such a big deal is it? Just a typo.

• Next message: Gil Hardwick: "Re: Why do you read sci.anthro?"
• Previous message: Gil Hardwick: "Method and disputation (was Re: Incest taboos)"