> 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