Jump to content

Outlook

Guest Goat Granny

By Guest Goat Granny
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Goat Granny

Guest Goat Granny

Posted
Posted

Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application outlook.exe,

version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault

address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

--

Goat Granny

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

Outlook-specific newsgroups include:

 

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.general

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.contacts

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.bcm

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.fax

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_addins

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_vba

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.teamfolders

http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.thirdpartyutil

--

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)

MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002

AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net

DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

 

Goat Granny wrote:

> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

> outlook.exe,

> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault

> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

Guest Gurney

Guest Gurney

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

<GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application outlook.exe,

>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault

>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

 

Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO.

 

Ask elsewhere

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

>>outlook.exe,

>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault

>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>

> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO.

>

> Ask elsewhere

 

You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

Guest Gurney

Guest Gurney

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

<notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

>>>outlook.exe,

>>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault

>>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

>>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>

>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO.

>>

>> Ask elsewhere

>

>You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>

Stop your crying and live with it.

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

>>>>outlook.exe,

>>>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>fault

>>>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

>>>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>

>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO.

>>>

>>> Ask elsewhere

>>

>>You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>

> Stop your crying and live with it.

 

Kiss my ass bitch.

Guest Gurney

Guest Gurney

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

<notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

>>>>>outlook.exe,

>>>>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>fault

>>>>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again

>>>>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>

>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO.

>>>>

>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>

>>>You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>

>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>

>Kiss my ass bitch.

>

So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling. It's

sad, really.

Guest Doug W.

Guest Doug W.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>application

>>>>>>outlook.exe,

>>>>>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>fault

>>>>>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to

>>>>>>working again

>>>>>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>

>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's

>>>>> title? NO.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>

>>>>You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>

>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>

>>Kiss my ass bitch.

>>

> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling.

> It's

> sad, really.

-

Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

-

>

Guest Gurney

Guest Gurney

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote:

>

>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>application

>>>>>>>outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>fault

>>>>>>>address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to

>>>>>>>working again

>>>>>>>isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's

>>>>>> title? NO.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>

>>>>>You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>

>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>

>>>Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>

>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling.

>> It's

>> sad, really.

>-

>Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

>as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>-

>

>>

Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

attention here?

Guest Terry R.

Guest Terry R.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney pounded

out on the keyboard:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote:

>

>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>> application

>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>> 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to

>>>>>>>> working again

>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's

>>>>>>> title? NO.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>

>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>

>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling.

>>> It's

>>> sad, really.

>> -

>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

>> as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>> -

>>

> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

> attention here?

>

 

And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling but then

used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Guest Doug W.

Guest Doug W.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

news:etURSEA2IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney

> pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W."

>> <stand@attention> wrote:

>>

>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>>> application

>>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>>> 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it

>>>>>>>>> to working again

>>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this

>>>>>>>> group's title? NO.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>>

>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name

>>>> calling. It's

>>>> sad, really.

>>> -

>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>>> alt.get_a_life.

>>> -

>>>

>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old

>> fashioned

>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you

>> paying

>> attention here?

>>

>

> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling

> but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>

> --

> Terry R.

>

> ***Reply Note***

> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

-

Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended

word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean "you

are" but the possessive "your".

-

Guest Terry R.

Guest Terry R.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded

out on the keyboard:

> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

> news:etURSEA2IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney

>> pounded out on the keyboard:

>>

>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W."

>>> <stand@attention> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>>>> application

>>>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>>>> 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it

>>>>>>>>>> to working again

>>>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this

>>>>>>>>> group's title? NO.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>>>

>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name

>>>>> calling. It's

>>>>> sad, really.

>>>> -

>>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>>>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>>>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>>>> alt.get_a_life.

>>>> -

>>>>

>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old

>>> fashioned

>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you

>>> paying

>>> attention here?

>>>

>> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling

>> but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>>

> -

> Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended

> word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean "you

> are" but the possessive "your".

> -

>

>

 

Sure Doug, if you think so.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Guest Terry R.

Guest Terry R.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded

out on the keyboard:

> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

> news:etURSEA2IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney

>> pounded out on the keyboard:

>>

>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W."

>>> <stand@attention> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>>>> application

>>>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>>>> 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it

>>>>>>>>>> to working again

>>>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this

>>>>>>>>> group's title? NO.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>>>

>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name

>>>>> calling. It's

>>>>> sad, really.

>>>> -

>>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>>>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>>>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>>>> alt.get_a_life.

>>>> -

>>>>

>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old

>>> fashioned

>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you

>>> paying

>>> attention here?

>>>

>> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling

>> but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>>

> -

> Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended

> word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean "you

> are" but the possessive "your".

> -

>

>

 

If you meant it as a possessive, you would have said, "Your not so

eloquent remarks/comments/etc, were the reason for my reply". But the

way you worded it was incorrect. "Your not so eloquent" can only be

stated as "You are not so eloquent". IF you would have left the comma

out and said, "Your not so eloquent replies...", then you would have

been correct.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Guest Doug W.

Guest Doug W.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

news:O8ZgJKG2IHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug

> W. pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

>> news:etURSEA2IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim,

>>> Gurney pounded out on the keyboard:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W."

>>>> <stand@attention> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting

>>>>>>>>>>> application

>>>>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module

>>>>>>>>>>> ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get

>>>>>>>>>>> it to working again

>>>>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this

>>>>>>>>>> group's title? NO.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name

>>>>>> calling. It's

>>>>>> sad, really.

>>>>> -

>>>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>>>>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>>>>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>>>>> alt.get_a_life.

>>>>> -

>>>>>

>>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old

>>>> fashioned

>>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are

>>>> you paying

>>>> attention here?

>>>>

>>> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling

>>> but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>>>

>> -

>> Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended

>> word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean

>> "you are" but the possessive "your".

>> -

>>

>>

>

> If you meant it as a possessive, you would have said, "Your

> not so eloquent remarks/comments/etc, were the reason for my

> reply". But the way you worded it was incorrect. "Your not

> so eloquent" can only be stated as "You are not so eloquent".

> IF you would have left the comma out and said, "Your not so

> eloquent replies...", then you would have been correct.

>

> --

> Terry R.

>

> ***Reply Note***

> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

-

 

Terry R. : Then please remove the "bad" comma for me and we will

both be ecstatically happy.

-

Cheers...

-

Guest Terry R.

Guest Terry R.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

The date and time was 6/27/2008 8:53 AM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded

out on the keyboard:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name

>>>>>>> calling. It's

>>>>>>> sad, really.

>>>>>> -

>>>>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder

>>>>>> replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>>>>>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>>>>>> alt.get_a_life.

>>>>>> -

>>>>>>

>>>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old

>>>>> fashioned

>>>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are

>>>>> you paying

>>>>> attention here?

>>>>>

>>>> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling

>>>> but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>>>>

>>> -

>>> Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended

>>> word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean

>>> "you are" but the possessive "your".

>>> -

>>>

>>>

>> If you meant it as a possessive, you would have said, "Your

>> not so eloquent remarks/comments/etc, were the reason for my

>> reply". But the way you worded it was incorrect. "Your not

>> so eloquent" can only be stated as "You are not so eloquent".

>> IF you would have left the comma out and said, "Your not so

>> eloquent replies...", then you would have been correct.

>>

> -

>

> Terry R. : Then please remove the "bad" comma for me and we will

> both be ecstatically happy.

> -

> Cheers...

> -

>

>

 

Not happy, just correct. ;-)

 

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

(snipped)

>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

> attention here?

 

You didn't understand me the first time? I said 'kiss my ass bitch", and

keep smooching until you lose the rudeness. There was no need for you to

respond to the OP the way you did. Take a look at PA Bear's response to the

OP. He said what he had to say in a civilized way, not being at all crude,

rude, and a basic idiot like you. Did *you* pay attention? You are a

complete moron.

Guest Gurney

Guest Gurney

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:24:25 -0400, "Still learning"

<notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>(snipped)

>

>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>

>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

>> attention here?

>

>You didn't understand me the first time? I said 'kiss my ass bitch", and

>keep smooching until you lose the rudeness. There was no need for you to

>respond to the OP the way you did. Take a look at PA Bear's response to the

>OP. He said what he had to say in a civilized way, not being at all crude,

>rude, and a basic idiot like you. Did *you* pay attention? You are a

>complete moron.

>

Why is it that YOU can be rude but want to spank me when I was? Does

that not make you a hypocrite? I'm not resorting to the name calling

that you do, just pointing out a fact.

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:ii2b64lp50559qq0n8iq18h80nga8l4oc7@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:24:25 -0400, "Still learning"

> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>(snipped)

>>

>>>"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>

>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

>>> attention here?

>>

>>You didn't understand me the first time? I said 'kiss my ass bitch", and

>>keep smooching until you lose the rudeness. There was no need for you to

>>respond to the OP the way you did. Take a look at PA Bear's response to

>>the

>>OP. He said what he had to say in a civilized way, not being at all crude,

>>rude, and a basic idiot like you. Did *you* pay attention? You are a

>>complete moron.

>>

> Why is it that YOU can be rude but want to spank me when I was? Does

> that not make you a hypocrite? I'm not resorting to the name calling

> that you do, just pointing out a fact.

 

I just told you. I did NOT like how rude you were to the OP...pure and

simple. You were NOT helpful at all. All you did was chastise the person for

asking an Outlook question here. Well maybe they didn't know about the

Outlook newsgroups, maybe their computer wasn't working, they freaked and

posted here. And then they get a response like yours. it wasn't cute,

necessary, or called for. People should understand that not everyone who

posts here knows all of the rules. So to answer your question, I never said

you name called, I said you were rude to the OP and you were.

Guest Unknown

Guest Unknown

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

You should have put a comma after 'your' to clarify.

"Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote in message

news:%236%23CsDC2IHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message

> news:etURSEA2IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney pounded

>> out on the keyboard:

>>

>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0600, "Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:olm564h6vp53jao94lbnip0o4hs4ehltaq@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:34:12 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:f4v264ds8chdb7rc47mbfcjc7lgfve85cp@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:52:05 -0400, "Still learning"

>>>>>>> <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:9lg064t3mefefcunq1aqjsav7j9si2rup8@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:03 -0700, Goat Granny

>>>>>>>>> <GoatGranny@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application

>>>>>>>>>> outlook.exe,

>>>>>>>>>> version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version

>>>>>>>>>> 5.1.2500.2180,

>>>>>>>>>> fault

>>>>>>>>>> address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working

>>>>>>>>>> again

>>>>>>>>>> isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.

>>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title?

>>>>>>>>> NO.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>> You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Stop your crying and live with it.

>>>>>> Kiss my ass bitch.

>>>>>>

>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling. It's

>>>>> sad, really.

>>>> -

>>>> Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

>>>> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

>>>> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>>>> -

>>>>

>>> Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned

>>> ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying

>>> attention here?

>>>

>>

>> And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling but then

>> used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it.

>>

>> --

>> Terry R.

>>

>> ***Reply Note***

>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

> -

> Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended word used,

> and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean "you are" but the

> possessive "your".

> -

>

>

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else

a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's

break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This is what he

posted:

 

"Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain

to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

 

Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we have

'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please

resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

alt.get_a_life.

 

Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies* singular

so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so eloquent, reply

are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

 

Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have

this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the

temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

alt.get_a_life.

 

Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this: Your

not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

 

If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and

you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the

temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

alt.get_a_life.'

 

See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

talking about.

Guest Big_Al

Guest Big_Al

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

Still learning wrote:

> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else

> a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's

> break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This is what he

> posted:

>

> "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain

> to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

>

> Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we have

> 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please

> resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.

>

> Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies* singular

> so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so eloquent, reply

> are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

>

> Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have

> this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.

>

> Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this: Your

> not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

> as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>

> If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and

> you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.'

>

> See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

> talking about.

>

>

>

 

My head hurts! :-)

Guest Still learning

Guest Still learning

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

 

"Big_Al" <BigAl@md.com> wrote in message

news:OMTE7wT2IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Still learning wrote:

>> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something

>> else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T.

>> Let's break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This

>> is what he posted:

>>

>> "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

>> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

>> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

>>

>> Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we

>> have 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are

>> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

>> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies*

>> singular so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so

>> eloquent, reply are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

>> as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

>>

>> Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have

>> this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the

>> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>> alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this:

>> Your not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation

>> to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and

>> you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the

>> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>> alt.get_a_life.'

>>

>> See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

>> talking about.

>>

>>

>>

>

> My head hurts! :-)

 

Lol...it was rather drawn out and long wasn't it?

Guest Unknown

Guest Unknown

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!

"Still learning" <notrealaddy@rukidding.com> wrote in message

news:%23sD91tT2IHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something

> else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T.

> Let's break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This is

> what he posted:

>

> "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain

> to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

>

> Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we

> have 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are

> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain

> to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>

> Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies*

> singular so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so

> eloquent, reply are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as

> they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

>

> Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have

> this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.

>

> Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this: Your

> not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>

> If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and

> you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.'

>

> See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

> talking about.

>

>

>

Guest Terry R.

Guest Terry R.

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

The date and time was 6/28/2008 9:24 AM, and on a whim, Still learning

pounded out on the keyboard:

> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else

> a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's

> break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This is what he

> posted:

>

> "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain

> to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

>

> Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we have

> 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please

> resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.

>

> Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies* singular

> so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so eloquent, reply

> are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

>

> Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have

> this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.

>

> Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this: Your

> not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply

> as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>

> If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and

> you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the

> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

> alt.get_a_life.'

>

> See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

> talking about.

>

>

>

 

You state yourself, "Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need

it..." Problem was the comma WAS there which made it incorrect. The

comma made the sentence state (in effect), "You're not so eloquent,..."

If the comma would have been omitted to begin with, everything would

have been fine.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Guest Elmo

Guest Elmo

Posted
Posted

Re: Outlook

 

Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was 6/28/2008 9:24 AM, and on a whim, Still learning

> pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something

>> else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T.

>> Let's break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed!

>> This is what he posted:

>>

>> "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies

>> are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

>> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life".

>>

>> Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we

>> have 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are

>> unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

>> pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies*

>> singular so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so

>> eloquent, reply are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to

>> reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.'

>>

>> Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you

>> have this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist

>> the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>> alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this:

>> Your not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the

>> temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>> alt.get_a_life.

>>

>> If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent',

>> and you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist

>> the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try

>> alt.get_a_life.'

>>

>> See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was

>> talking about.

>>

>>

>>

>

> You state yourself, "Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need

> it..." Problem was the comma WAS there which made it incorrect. The

> comma made the sentence state (in effect), "You're not so eloquent,..."

> If the comma would have been omitted to begin with, everything would

> have been fine.

 

To really clarify the intent of the sentence, it should have read:

 

"Your not-so-eloquent (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are

unnecessary... please resist the temptation to reply as they don't

pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.?

 

 

--

Joe =o)

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...