[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [NOISE] The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?

To: [email protected] (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: [NOISE] The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?
From: [email protected] (Futplex)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 12:56:35 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "James M. Cobb" at Jan 9, 96 01:50:32 am
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

James M. Cobb writes:
>   That message quoted a couple of paragraphs from a Bloomberg news 
>   agency newsstory.  The story is headlined, Netscape Will Release 
>   an Updated Internet Browser in Two Weeks.  The story's datelined 
>   Mountain View CA. 
[...]
>   You posted your message via Best Internet Communications Inc in 
>   Mountain View CA... 
>  
>   Whatever the significance of that may be, 

As Perry has patiently pointed out time and again, this is not 
"conspiracypunks". In this case, I expect you might even get laughed off
alt.conspiracy. Don't post this silliness here.

Futplex <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMPKsJCnaAKQPVHDZAQGRkQf/afMIAN7jcBZFb7mN2OH/d8FtzX7qWvIx
0hYiWw6pK3d8S/4hDzPNrr5ORyNmW7xWfZ0VrU3Oqryvj6dvRVGbCk99dO+8jTQd
qiJohvOm9OiYBLG4raoqWTnF0eBw3COnKs1qS4Jk9rr1SfFYJYAtBXYMH9NjcgwU
qocrhXPdvltcF2piQqZwzWvKvR7IZmp6jF1UzbuL5HDabtr3qi3B2qjAJuf22/UM
866RQGUrBUNOTSoDbTOWJ4eP8GKseqFIEEJGBA44rhwGm8VOwrZIPNqCdUgi8Qaj
rSrPkJbXKGg/2N0WkuQHIjR+bJhdkmHcN2ksqNU0qTdYUPWszEIpZQ==
=Gl7W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Re: The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?
  - From: "James M. Cobb" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: S.652 (H.R. 1555)
Next by Date: Anyone using Microsoft Access 95?
Prev by thread: Re: The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?
Next by thread: Re: The LOGIC of Navigator 2.0 ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread