Hey Terry. I agree with many of the things you have said. And they make sense
to me. I was just trying to shed light on why it miffs people. I want to
thank you and all the other RT'ers for sticking with us through these insane
litte wars.
I knew I should have let it go... oh well. I've spent my whole life having a
acute knowledge of what my current foot wardrobe tastes like... why stop
now?!?! :-)
Peace fellow members of the Dakota Nation!!
Now about Chief Little Ram ... I was all about to nominate you for Prez of the
USA until that little comment about the 4.7 bein 'wimpy' .... heh heh heh
-- Terry wrote --
From: Terry Herrin <therrin@isaac.net>
On 14 Jul 2000 12:21:41 -0700, "Tim J Koth" <Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com>
wrote:
>but the ONLY reason there is an issue with the R/T list, and it will CONTINUE
>to be an issue until it is CHANGED, is the OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT to join the
>R/T list. It is exclusionary. You can tell everyone they aren't missing
I know I've said I would drop this subject, but, I lied. Sorry, can't
let this one go by. Yes, it's exclusionary, because it's a list for
R/T owners. I belong to a number of other lists, non vehicle related,
which are also exclusionary. Check out egroups and you'll find a lot
of exclusionary lists exist. Fact of life, they're our there. If you
want to join, you have to meet the criteria to join.
- snip -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:52:38 EDT