Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!lee
From: lee@chinet.UUCP (Lee Morehead)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Re: History (origin of foobar)
Message-ID: <1602@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Sep-87 19:13:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1602
Posted: Sun Sep 20 19:13:59 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Sep-87 04:58:00 EDT
References: <1252@homxc.UUCP> <2766@eecae.UUCP> <2895@phri.UUCP> <3840@zen.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: lee@chinet.UUCP (Lee Morehead)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 18
Xref: mnetor comp.misc:1265 comp.unix.questions:4186

In article <3840@zen.berkeley.edu> schung@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Stephen the Greatest) writes:
>>
>>	I'm surprised nobody have mentioned this yet, but isn't foobar
>>simply foo divided by 2 pi?
>>
>
>	That's stupid.  Not everyone majors in Quantum Machanics you know.
>
>						Stephen
No, no, no. Foobar is simply inverse foo. :-)
-- 

					Lee Morehead
					...!ihnp4!chinet!lee

"One size fits all."
Just who is this "all" person anyway,
and why is he wearing my clothes?