Re: [evolution-disc.] MR-2 why always 1993?

[Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>]

Yes. This is an argument against it.  :^)

Matt Murray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <MWood24020@aol.com>
To: <mattm@optonline.net>; <evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [evolution-disc.] MR-2 why always 1993?


> doesn't the '93 year allow the best mix and match of parts/options  
> combination?