Re: NX591Egsm

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Sep 15, 11:19?am, "Roland More" <NoSpamrol...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >"we're all"
>
> A regional idiom or bromide, perhaps a variant of "you all" and not to be
> taken literally.
>
> "Jim" <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1189829596.565274.215450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 6:05?pm, "Just Looking" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >rather than wanting to be confused with me.
>
> >> Well after you post a long Bass rant we're all a little confused with
> >> you.
> >> Unfortunately by using the name Jim he may be mistakenly identified as
> >> you
> >> too. An inadvertent flame or two sent his way, instead of yours of
> >> course,
> >> will straighten things out for him I feel certain. Maybe he could use
> >> "Not
> >> that Jim" as his name?
>
> > You must be mistaking me for some one else. I very seldom post "long"
> > Dead Ass rants. Occasionally but not often. But please, ...... DO
> > identifiy who "we're all" are.
>
> > And .... well .....yes, as a matter of fact I WAS concerned about him
> > being mistakenly identified with me. I wouldn't want anyone else being
> > given credit for telling Dead Ass to hurry up and dig his grave.
>
> > As far as inadvertent flames being sent HIS way, I doubt it. That
> > would mean someone had inadvertently mistaken me for a nice guy.
>
> > "Not that Jim" .............. sounds good to me. Since you're
> > apparently the spokesman for "we're all" maybe you should tell him
> > that everyone wants him to change it.-


The term "you all" can refer to one or a lot of people.

"We're all" does not.

And apparently, "We're all", in it's usual uncommunicative way, has
decided that's the case anyway.

But, in any event .... you know the drill ..........
if you/they don't like it... etc, etc.