The case for Conversant

Messages in thread: 8.

		The case for Conversant - 5/22/2002 - by Duncan None.
		Today a Manila user e-mailed me to ask about Conversant. I haven't asked permission Reply

		Re: The case for Conversant - 5/22/2002 - by Jim Roepcke None.
		On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Duncan wrote: > I can't think of anything Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/22/2002 - by Duncan Smeed None.
		> >> I can't think of anything that Manila provides that isn't in >> Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/22/2002 - by Seth Dillingham None.
		On 5/22/02, Duncan Smeed said: >>Outline-based directory editing is the only Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/27/2002 - by Mark Morgan None.
		"I can't think of anything that Manila provides that isn't in Conversant." Local Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/27/2002 - by Seth Dillingham None.
		On 5/27/02, Mark Morgan said: >Local backup Not true. Free-Conversant doesn't Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/27/2002 - by Mark Morgan None.
		Good points, and I'll stop hogging Duncan's discussion group with Conversant debates. Reply

		RE: The case for Conversant - 5/27/2002 - by Duncan Smeed None.
		>Good points, and I'll stop hogging Duncan's discussion group with >Conversant Reply