| To: | "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: 260 vs. 289 |
| From: | Tom Hall <modtiger@home.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:08:05 -0700 |
At 09:46 AM 8/9/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Reid,
>
>We really have to break this question into two parts.
clip
>My 2 cents worth,
>
>Bob
Sacrilege aside, your good. That's the best, most concise analysis I've
seen on this list in a long time. Congrats
Tom
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 260 vs. 289, Steve Laifman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Clutch Help, SFordRB |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 260 vs. 289, Steve Laifman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 260 vs. 289, SFordRB |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |