I think the problem was a _lack_ of discussion, which may be why
Mark thought it should go back-channel. And as long as it remained
at the level of position-staking, it wasn't of much interest to me.
But the exchange perked up (IMHO) when Mark mentioned his "research
on the imaginary friend," about which I (for one) would like to hear
more--Candice
At 11:59 PM 7/14/00 +0100, you wrote:
>I was enjoying the discussion . . . .
>
>
>Andy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|