From: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org (basia-digest) To: basia-digest@smoe.org Subject: basia-digest V1 #298 Reply-To: basia@smoe.org Sender: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "basia-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. basia-digest Wednesday, December 4 1996 Volume 01 : Number 298 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: well well well! Re: well well well! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:03:00 -0500 From: "Dennis J. Majewicz" Subject: Re: well well well! On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 Diane F. Fisli wrote: > > Hey Rique! Ya got it right! :) > Diane, Lest we forget, Roach put forth the Nick theory way back in January after the Lauren Hutton interview hit the air. We all thought he was nuts back then, right? :) Didn't even respond to his posting. Well, I, for one, am humbled. He knows all, sees all. Nick, don't let us scare you off. As Di says, we are a classy bunch - though a bit "off the wall" Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 01:11:55 EST From: roach2@juno.com (J.S. Lohr) Subject: Re: well well well! On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:03:00 -0500 "Dennis J. Majewicz" writes: >On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 Diane F. Fisli wrote: >> >> Hey Rique! Ya got it right! :) >> > > >Diane, > > Lest we forget, Roach put forth the Nick theory way back in >January after the Lauren Hutton interview hit the air. That's all this list is - theories and Phil's state of mind (or lack thereof). ;) >We all thought he was nuts back then, right? :) And you probably still do. >Didn't even respond to his posting. Does anyone ever? >Well, I, for one, am humbled. He knows all, sees all. I was only guessing. Toodles! JSL. ------------------------------ End of basia-digest V1 #298 ***************************