From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 00:39:07 MDT
Michael Roy Ames wrote:
> You wrote:
>>Soft is good.
> Not necessarily. Soft may be more pleasant to read, but it may not provide
> precise communication, and it may waste time.
You mean wasting time as in polishing turds that cannot possibly
turn into diamonds of truth or even be of any real importance by
their very nature? :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT