[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[5]: [at-l] RE: Why the Grand Unification Theory - isn't

Subject: Re[5]: [at-l] RE: Why the Grand Unification Theory - isn't
From: Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net (Bob C.)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:55:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1652264017.20020606105014@clinic.net>
References: <NDBBKGLGADMBBJGENHFJGEPNEDAA.shane@theplacewithnoname.com><1652264017.20020606105014@clinic.net>

Sorry:  The above was supposed to be a private message to Shane. I've got to get
out of the habit of relying on habit.

Weary

References:
- Re[4]: [at-l] RE: Why the Grand Unification Theory - isn't
  - From: Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net (Bob C.)

Prev by Date: [at-l] (OT) Whole powdered milk
Next by Date: [at-l] (OT) Whole powdered milk
Prev by thread: Re[4]: [at-l] RE: Why the Grand Unification Theory - isn't
Next by thread: [at-l] Underware on the trail
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread