linda wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:50:34 GMT, linda >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:55 GMT, linda >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke
>>>>>>> was gay, I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn.
>>>>>>> They were Men's Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think
>>>>>>> otherwise. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem.
>>>>>> That's not anywhere near what was written.
>>>>>> What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to
>>>>>> support your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and i think i have repeatedly stated, I CANNOT FIND ANY SITE. I
>>>>> cannot find any evidence.. hell, how much clearer do i have to be?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you post what you knew would be a post that would
>>>> generate requests for some evidence???
>>>>
>>>
>>> Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and
>>> again as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a
>>> claim that our beloved duke was *OMG* gay.....
>>
>>
>> Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young?
>> Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is,
>> so I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about
>> it." This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while.
>> Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you
>> say. Especially when you malign an ICON.
>>
> i wish i really were that naive... to be that young again! thank you
> for thinking both....
> Actually, I was NOT the original poster that the DUKE was gay. Re-Read
> your original posts....