Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.95/text6909.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-03-31 | 1.7 KB

Received: from sloth.swcp.com (sloth.swcp.com [198.59.115.25]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA28465 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 11:44:04 -0800
Received: from iclone.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by sloth.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with UUCP id MAA15344 for nacm.com!executor; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 12:44:03 -0700
Received: from beaut.ardi.com by mailhost  with smtp
    (nextstep Smail3.1.29.0 #11) id m0tGt68-000YcHC; Sat, 18 Nov 95 12:38 MST
Received: by beaut.ardi.com (linux Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
    id m0tGt68-000277C; Sat, 18 Nov 95 12:38 MST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 12:38 MST
From: [e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Yay!!!  RESULT: comp.emulators.mac.executor passes 356:20
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

I've been told that "[e-mail]" is missing from the list of voters.
I'm slightly embarrassed, but I *did* vote and I do believe I received
an ACK.  Since c.e.m.e. passed so overwhelmingly there's little reason
for me to look into my disappearing vote, but please don't consider me
a hypocrite for not appearing on the roster.

I was told there were two *other* "Clifford T. Matthews"s who had
voted, so perhaps their presence has something to do with
"[e-mail]"'s absence.  Six years ago, when Executor was a young
lad, we had no licensing fee, and instead we required Executor owners
to name their first male child after me.  We didn't license too many
copies of Executor back then, but apparently a couple of the kids have
grown up and are making themselves heard.

--Cliff
[e-mail]