woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/26/85)
I'm sure no one really wants to read this, so I will keep it short. First
of all, suffice it to say that Rich's description of the content of our
discussion, which he did NOT have my permission to post to the whole net,
is inaccurate and biased. It reflects HIS view on what was said.
Secondly, I did not terminate the discussion as he suggested. It would appear
that my last reply to him was lost, I will resend it if he REALLY wants to
continue the discussion.
Thirdly, his article proves my points 100%, starting from the title
right down through the article. I second my call to delete Rich Rosen. If
Rich wants to propose deleting me he is welcome to do so. I wonder who
would get more votes? :-)
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY