Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: I agree with this. But doesn't the same argument apply to at least [5]?
Very possibly. (I'm out of town at the moment, and don't remember exactly what [5] was). But I had other issues with [5] as well which discounted it.
Jochen