http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/18/arms.space.reut/index.html
Anybody on this list involved in the planning?
-Mike
What part of 'but we'd have to kill you' wasn't clear? ;->=
The_Beast
> What part of 'but we'd have to kill you' wasn't clear? ;->=
The "we" part. Is this a confirmation you're part of that "we"?;)
Hmm. Doesn't this fly directly in the face of existing treaties on
space-based weapons? At least I thought those treaties were in place.
Cheers,
> The "we" part. Is this a confirmation you're part of that "we"? ;)
I was going to say '...in the memo...' so I could later say, well, you didn't
see my signature on the memo, but nevermind...
Humor, what a concept...
> Hmm. Doesn't this fly directly in the face of existing treaties on
Such treaties are painfully complicated in wording, but it sure scared the
bejeebers out of me when I read it. More than that, and I'd start sounding
political. This is a leisure-oriented list, after all.
However, on a 'game' note, I'm still reminded of the background for MB's old
Fortress America...
The_Beast
In a message dated 5/18/05 10:24:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
> msarno@epix.net writes:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/18/arms.space.reut/index.html
Anybody on this list involved in the planning?
-Mike
As they say at work, "I can neither confirm or deny" [fill in the blank].
Gracias,