 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Tue, 2 May 1995 14:17:09 -0500 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In article <1995May2.135115.44903@miavx1>, [log in to unmask]
(Micah James Cooper) writes:
> Yes, elm would definately be a step backwards.
Like it's been pointed out before, by me and by others, this is wholly a matter
of opinion. I believe it would be nice to have at least an option. I for one
can't stand pine.
-- a
|
|
|
