|
|
|
|
| Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth |
You missed my point Dennis. Let me try again .... Neither you can prove nor can I disprove that your prediction was significant because your prediction was so vague. Your VAGUE prediction is the problem here, I don't know how else to say it............... Follow Ups: ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Dennis 13:26:05 - 4/24/2001 (6989) (2) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Canie 13:41:16 - 4/24/2001 (6996) (1) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - michael 13:57:03 - 4/24/2001 (6997) (1) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Dennis 14:11:58 - 4/24/2001 (6999) (0) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - michael 13:33:22 - 4/24/2001 (6995) (1) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Dennis 14:10:26 - 4/24/2001 (6998) (2) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - michael 16:59:40 - 4/24/2001 (7007) (1) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Dennis 22:20:52 - 4/24/2001 (7012) (1) ● Boasting - michael 22:38:46 - 4/24/2001 (7013) (0) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Roger Hunter 15:24:52 - 4/24/2001 (7006) (2) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Dennis 09:48:59 - 4/25/2001 (7026) (0) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - michael 17:01:59 - 4/24/2001 (7008) (2) ● butt head posts again (nt) - Dennis 09:50:08 - 4/25/2001 (7028) (0) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - Roger Hunter 17:31:42 - 4/24/2001 (7009) (1) ● Re: Ridgecrest and mammoth - michael 22:44:46 - 4/24/2001 (7016) (0) |
|
|
|
|
