[dd5339]

Well, I'm truly sorry that it didn't occur to you that the 4 & 5 I was referring to were from the text and that the distance I was questioning was from the map.

After all, both were offered in the original source. As far as what I was referencing, I don't think it's possible for you to "KNOW" what I was referencing as; 1. You were not physically here to discuss it with me. 2. You were incorrect in stating what I was referencing.

Since it appears that I have confused the issue and more importantly confused you, I do humbly apologize. I'll try to remember to keep my questions simpler when you are participating in the discussion.

As to the personal attacks, what's the deal? Civil discourse is much more entertaining.

I do hope that your day goes better.

Semper Fi

[lugsoul]

What do you mean, didn't occur to me? That is exactly what I said - in response to your claim that the graphics were not important. I simply pointed out, in response to your first post, that you were viewing the two (text and map) incorrectly. Either the time was much more than 25 minutes or the distance was much shorter than you assumed from the map. And your response to that was to attack my comments and lamely attempt to justify your initial post, which was clearly in error. In that light, you are hardly the one to lecture about civil discourse.

[lugsoul]

Oh, let me add - so that you do not again misconstrue my comments: if it is your contention that your first post referenced numbers 4 and 5 from the text and was intended to reference the corresponding shootings on the map (regardless of number), please note that those two sites are so close on the map that they touch - completely negating the entire import of your intial post.