> i know it won't suit the high-falutin' 20th century mathematicians
> amongst us, but for the great unwashed MathType is perfectly
> plausible. indeed
talking of which, have you heard from them again?
> its a shame we don't have a competition for "the most inaccurate and
> ill-informed remarks made on latex-l each month".
aberg's odd ... in a sort of r&r-ish way, don't you think? sometimes
he talks near-sense, then he rushes off and rants and raves and flies
in the face of everyone else's reality. am i a clinical psychiatrist
or what?
r