RE: archivalness of gum
Oh yes, I understood what you meant. There is no need for clarification, but
thanks anyway. :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: archivalness of gum
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> > Myself, I consider gum quite archival; the only thing I'm
> objecting to
> > here is categorical pronouncements based purely on speculation.
> > Katharine
> Clarification: Dave, the last sentence didn't refer to
> anything in your post; I was thinking more of the attempts to
> rank processes by archivality.