At 11:14 AM 12/6/2004, Jed Rothwell, disingenuous-as-ever,
falsely wrote that our papers were phantom. The only phantom
is what would be seen on Rothwell's head CAT scan.
1) First, we object to Rothwell's false statements and waste of bandwidth.
The papers were not phantom. Rothwell simply
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 11:14 AM 12/6/2004, Jed Rothwell, disingenuous-as-ever,
falsely wrote that our papers were phantom.
Well, Mitch, phantom or real, they are now listed in the database. So you
have nothing left to complain about. Ha, ha!
I will delete them if you would like. I would be
Just a suggestion.
It might be helpful to develop a system of qualifying flags.
e.g. One flag would denote the web site manager's knowledge of a paper's
state of completion.
Harry
Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay! Even though I doubt these papers exist in any tangible
Harry Veeder wrote:
Just a suggestion.
It might be helpful to develop a system of qualifying flags.
e.g. One flag would denote the web site manager's knowledge of a paper's
state of completion.
Normally, this is not a problem. Normally, I only record papers when I am
sure they have been
4 matches
Mail list logo
