15 Jun
2005
15 Jun
'05
3:04 p.m.
Sorry, just lurking in this discussion, and I know this was just a typo (since "liable" is spelled correctly plenty of times in the post), but I thought its placement in the post was particularly funny:
On 6/14/05, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote: <snip>
.... established, in large part through suits against AOL, that the
Operators were not labile, provided they ...
<snip>
.... since I knew quite a few BBS operators "back in the day" and all of them most certainly WERE "labile"http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1?s=labile....
;^)
JOE