Your vs. you're

[An English Boy]

mc will appeal to a higher court.

AEB~

>From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal at vtmednet.org>
>Reply-To: The Who Mailing List <thewho at igtc.com>
>To: <thewho at igtc.com>
>Subject: Your vs. you're
>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:46:53 -0500
>
> >sroundtable
> >Your vs. you're
> >
> >Use of the word "If" in place of "When" prior to "cover up you're
>nuts," would make the "you're" theory more likely.  In
> >addition, if the next line was "'cause you're admitting that there must
>be something wrong," (which works lyrically in
> >rhythm) that would also support the theory.  The absence of these words
>detracts from the "you're" interp.
>
>OBJECTION !
>Argumentative!
>Argument is nonsensical, grammatically incorrect, supports both sides,
>and downright irrelevant.
>
><judge> Sustained!  Theory still stands as such.
>
>Ahhhhhh, sweet vindication.
>
>Kevin in VT
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice:
>This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is 
>confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and 
>federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical 
>information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate 
>means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message 
>was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from 
>all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TheWho mailing list
>TheWho at igtc.com
>http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/thewho

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete’s Collections with Live Search 
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01