Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@WFU.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2006 - 00:30:45 EST

Next message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Previous message: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
In reply to: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Next in thread: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Reply: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Fred Moseley wrote:

> What do others think?

I hasten to say that Fred's question should have been directed to
(and surely was intended for) the members of the OPE advisory
committee.  I don't think it would be productive at this point to
debate "what is a flame" here.  The substantive discussion seems
to be going well without getting back into that!

Allin Cottrell

Next message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Previous message: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
In reply to: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Next in thread: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Reply: Fred Moseley: "Re: [OPE-L] you don't call this a flame?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST