On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 04:30:08AM -0000, Andrew Bowman wrote: > > P.S. I suggest we consider redefining [OT] in subject lines to indicate 'on > topic' - since this will, for most posts to London PM, reduce the amount of > typing ;-) Oh, does OT mean something else? :-) dha, who notes that, for something to be O(n|ff) Topic, there needs to *be* a topic... -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Although, of course, it will be $ME in line with the usual practice of SHOUTING OUT MAGIC VARIABLES. - Damian Conway
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of geezers Robin Szemeti
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of geezers David H. Adler
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of geeze... Robin Szemeti
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of g... David H. Adler
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch ... Robin Szemeti
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a b... Jonathan Stowe
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what... Robin Szemeti
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what... Piers Cawley
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a b... David H. Adler
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of geezers Andrew Bowman
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of geeze... David H. Adler
- Re: [getting OT] Blackstar - what a bunch of g... Greg McCarroll
