Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:06:57 GMT From: "R. Mark Plumlee" <eplumleenopsamouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: 900=9-3, why isn't 9000=9-4?
because its a 90,000, not a rehashed 9000 see ? Bobcat wrote: > If the 900 became the 9-3, how come the > 9000 didn't become the 9-4 but ended up 9-5? > > Just wondering....