Re: presistent modula

Pheavener <> wrote:

>
>presistant moudla has quite working

So has your spell checker.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:53:28 -0500, Manny Weisbord wrote:

> Pheavener <> wrote:
>
>>
>>presistant moudla has quite working
>
> So has your spell checker.

Don't be too sure. Maybe his actual presistant moudla has actually quite
working...

The worst thing for me is that even when I read the misspellings correctly,
I still have no idea what the post means :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:53:28 -0500, Manny Weisbord wrote:
>
>> Pheavener <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>presistant moudla has quite working
>>
>> So has your spell checker.
>
>Don't be too sure. Maybe his actual presistant moudla has actually quite
>working...

Welp, what about the presistent modula mentioned in the subject!?

Is it the "presistent modula" or the "presistant moudla" that isn't
working - or could it be both!? <g>

>The worst thing for me is that even when I read the misspellings correctly,
>I still have no idea what the post means :-)

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:49:30 -0500, Manny Weisbord wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:53:28 -0500, Manny Weisbord wrote:
>>
>>> Pheavener <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>presistant moudla has quite working
>>>
>>> So has your spell checker.
>>
>>Don't be too sure. Maybe his actual presistant moudla has actually quite
>>working...
>
> Welp, what about the presistent modula mentioned in the subject!?
>
> Is it the "presistent modula" or the "presistant moudla" that isn't
> working - or could it be both!? <g>
>
>>The worst thing for me is that even when I read the misspellings correctly,
>>I still have no idea what the post means :-)

Ah, thanks! All is now clear to me! I had missed the other term in the
subject, careless as I am :-)

Geez - it's only 10:20 AM here - I shouldn't be quite so weird this early
in the day :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom