[SteveH]

I'm sorry, please point me to a post or posts that I missed which addresses the concerns. If they do, then fine, I'll read them and see. I'm just skimming after spending a while on a totally different task, and tracking this (and any one person's posts) does not get all my attention at this time.

My response was made in good faith, and I am deliberately trying not to be negative, so why the attitude?

OK, I just went back a couple of days and did not see anything that you posted which addressed my concerns. I am interested but I'll try to refrain from bothering you again if you won't -- or can't (which is it?) -- respond to me without namecalling and condescending language.

I left out the others you cc'd because I don't know what this has to do with any of them.

[BibChr]

I don't have the time or the will to do your research for you, Steve.

So if my unwillingness to re-re-re-document what I (and many others who read me, evidently) consider general informed knowledge, I do politiely, in intent, suggest you skip my posts.

And I strongly suggest that you refrain from shifting the onus of your unfamiliarity with the facts to mistakenly alleged "emotionalism" on my part.

Dan

[NormsRevenge]

Don't waste your time on him. He couldn't be truthful if his logon depended on it. Look how he just digs his hole deeper and throws all the dirt back at you. LOL ;-)