If not, I have the '48 edition with the original note.
>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]
> 01/17/10 9:09 PM >>>
Tom Colket wrote:
> Great job, CR, of finding the original footnote. It is worded _quite_
> differently from the 1962 re-write!
It is worded somewhat differently, but my first impression was as
Raine described: there is no discontinuity between the two.
> Just in case the link ever goes away, I think it's worth making these
> part of the TSE archives:
Are there archives?