No, excuse me!
Re: um, excuse me? -- dant	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: jonx ® 07/30/2005, 01:22:32 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Yes or no: Is it possible that the concept of surrender could be misinterpreted? By the way, I read your post.

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Re: No, excuse me! --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:37:42 ) ( 225 bytes ) +1 Re: No, excuse me! --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:54:17 ) ( 538 bytes ) +1 integrity --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:11:30 ) ( 897 bytes ) +3 Now what could surrender mean --- Jethro ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:44:13 ) ( 465 bytes ) Re: integrity --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:14:23 ) ( 1586 bytes ) +2 dant being very serious now --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:55:17 ) ( 2712 bytes ) Checkmate again, Jonx! LOL!!!!!!!!! (I love it!) --- Jim ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 16:00:47 ) ( 787 bytes ) +1 What a perfectly lame argument! --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 05:28:48 ) ( 441 bytes ) img +1 So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 10:57:58 ) ( 448 bytes ) +1 Re: So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- jonx ( Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 01:07:52 ) ( 1040 bytes ) img pointless --- Toby ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:53:22 ) ( 545 bytes ) +1 Re: pointless --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:11:45 ) ( 362 bytes )