Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 07:08:07 PST

Next message: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Next in thread: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Reply: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On even further reflection, I have no idea why I took such a muddled
path to such an evidently correct conclusion.  Must be because I
hadn't had any coffee yet.  Wait, I don't drink coffee.

Anyway, the judgements stand, even if the explanation sucked.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

Next message: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Next in thread: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Reply: Karl Low: "Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST