>>- post a question, if necessary include some code
>I have been posting a lot of questions, seems my questions are somewhat too hard to reply or "too much work"??
>
>>- it is helpful if the question subject reflects the nature of the problem
>I have been explaining in DETAILS, just this time I posted again with the statement "THIS SECTION I NEED HELP!" down in the coding...
>
>>- at the start of the problem code put SET STEP ON and use the debugger to step through the code, looks at the variables and objects to ensure they have the values that you intend
>I debug a lot, still somewhat little confused. I will be doing more and more. I just thought to have a outsider look at it and see if they understand it or find something wrong (which there is in that section I pointed out).

The wrong thing is that the code is somewhat confusing. I was away from UT for a week, and now that I returned, I see you're still wrestling with the same problem. I've had this sort of matching two tables happening before, but not in a situation where you have to actually leave the doubles (IF I'm remembering the original problem well).

I'd just change strategy: SELECT BOTH into a cursor, with an additional field denoting a source of the record, and order it by the fields which should be equal to consider the records equal. You could use the Recno() from the table to be updated, and a zero instead of it for the added records table, so the record is new if this field is zero. Then you'd end up with a group of something between one and ten adjacent records. From these records, you could pick the ones you need to update, insert or delete in the original table, probably easier than playing heavy logic trying to synchronize two tables.

It's still possible that I didn't understand your problem...