On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Fool wrote: > > But really as with CFJ 3357, it seems the underlying issue is: > > who wrote this junk? >
I did. Sorry. —"I also apologize if this email turns out to be in HTML" Machiavelli
On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Fool wrote: > > But really as with CFJ 3357, it seems the underlying issue is: > > who wrote this junk? >
I did. Sorry. —"I also apologize if this email turns out to be in HTML" Machiavelli