tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 05 18:57:22 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: it; SIS

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: it; SIS
• Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:52:25 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <a05100306bc96970bfd3c@[10.0.1.39]> <[email protected]>

ja' SuStel:
>Dude!  I really hope this is some kind of old message burp.  The message to
>which you are replying was sent on March 29.

HIvqa' veqlargh.  DaHjaj po QInlIj vIHev.  DaHjaj po DangeHlaw':

>Date: Monday, 09:41:36 -0500

jar ngu'be'.  jar jaj ngu'be'.  jaj pong neH ngu'.  DaHjaj jabbI'ID ngeHlu'
'e' 'anglaw'.  DaH jaS jIchovnIS; chaq DaHjaj Hevqu'lu' 'e' 'ang.  latlh
De' vIcha'DI', vItHey vItu':

>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 14:41:37.0120 (UTC)

yajHa'ghachvam vIbotmeH chaq De'wI'wIj wIvmey vIlISlaH.

>I hope your message was sent
>back then too, and that it got stuck in the system somewhere, 'cause I've
>never seen it, it doesn't show up in the archives until today, and we've
>been over all this.

jIQochbe'; maja'chuq rIntaH.  meqvammo' jIqejchoH.  bIghoHrupqa' 'e' vIQub.
not jIjatlhta' 'e' Daghetlaw'.  mutoj jabbI'ID paS.

I hope everyone will understand my outburst.  We *have* been over all this.
When I received SuStel's message this morning, I thought he was acting as
if we hadn't.  I thought he was intentionally ignoring my contrary
position.  I was mistaken.  His message was actually sent not today but a
week ago, before we went "over all this."

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: it; SIS
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
  • Re: it; SIS
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: (no subject)
• Next by Date: Re: tetlhvamDaq Hoch nuvpu' /everyone on this list
• Previous by thread: Re: it; SIS
• Next by thread: say again?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level