> 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