Re: RS/RE: basic questions

At 10:53 AM 9/20/96 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

>Can someone actually explain the RE rules here, in terms *not* those
>used in the relevant clause of 8879?  (If I understood it in those
>terms I wouldn't have this problem.)

Funny you should ask. Mere seconds before I got your email I was searching
the Web for just such an explanation for my own use. I found one at:


It's a Usenet thread that you participated in. =) 

 Paul Prescod