>> about it is the multiple volumes... but even at that, RAR is more
> RAR doesn't have the technical advancement that ARJ does as far as
> options.
What kind of functionality do you actually miss on RAR that ARJ has?
> Aparently RAR may not work with some remote terminals because of
> it's extended ASCII display.
RAR can be forced to not show those fancy ascii-graphics, and act just like 
ARJ either by using the -std switch.
> ARJ is easier to use than Pkzip and RAR is only an ARJ rip-off wannabe.
Well, the fact that it resembles ARJ (and LHArc) won't make it any worse 
archiver. It's easy to adapt into RAR if you're familiar with ARJ or LHA. At 
least it was for me.
Why I prefer RAR over ARJ is the fact, that RAR compresses a lot better, and 
it has native versions for OS/2 and Windows.
Before I found RAR, I too used ARJ for personal archiving for the fact that 
it had (and still has) a very fine multi-volume handling system.
--- BBBS/2 v3.42 ToMmIk-6v
---------------