Re: No, that's better
Posted by Bill Wallace on Feb 27, 2002 at 21:09
(66.57.134.162)Re: No, that's better (bobbapink)
Bobba, once these objects were separated, wouldn't they then have a new straightest line to the attractor, obviating any connection to the other object and it's path to the attractor?
Follow Ups:
- Re: No, that's better dogrock 27/2 21:31 (15)
- Re: No, that's better dogrock 27/2 21:52 (14)
- Re: No, that's better Natalie L. Smith 28/2 09:05 (12)
- Nicely articulated bobbapink 28/2 10:02 (11)
- Re: Nicely articulated Natalie L. Smith 28/2 13:38 (0)
- Re: May I join? Dale 28/2 10:21 (9)
- Re: May I join? Shasta 02/3 13:35 (0)
- Re: May I join? bobbapink 28/2 11:17 (7)
- Re: May I join? Dale 01/3 08:46 (5)
- Re: May I join? toni 01/3 14:04 (0)
- Re: May I join? toni 01/3 14:04 (0)
- Re: May I join? toni 01/3 14:04 (0)
- Re: May I join? toni 01/3 14:04 (1)
- Re: May I join? Shasta 02/3 13:38 (0)
- Re: May I join? dogrock 28/2 15:31 (0)
- Re: No, that's better Bill Wallace 27/2 22:30 (0)