Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Monkey gets BEDELU wrong
Date: Jun 28, 2005 @ 19:16
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Monkey could be partially right, but do we actuallyaha good point
> know if the condo
> markers are direct or indirect. I am not sure if we
> ever cleared that
> answer.
> dig out some data here__________________________________
> once and for all.
>
>
>
> Jesper
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Fra: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com] På
> vegne af aletheiak
> Sendt: 28. juni 2005 19:01
> Til: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Emne: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Monkey gets BEDELU wrong
>
>
>
> hahahahahaha
>
> hahahahahahaha
>
> ahhhh
>
> talk about following suit
>
> hahahaha
>
> etc all night & morning
>
> a perfect monkey see monkey do
>
> & clearly our best joke try ever
> class a
>
>
> but isnt marker 52 itself at the luxembourg end of
> the bedelulu triline
> & so not really wrong but rather just barely
> partially right
>
>
> i think the no mans zone must be bogus as usual tho
> dont you
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper
> Nielsen" <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > http://www.monkeytravel.org/eu.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But any other data on the unclaimed land?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesper