>Mike,
>
>>>Good explanation! (I would edit it to substitute "following" for "proceeding"). :-)
>>
>>It doesn't sound as intelligent then :-)
>
>(Well, he passed high school, so I guess he knows what he's talking about)
>
>:-)

Watch it, it "not equals" could mislead you!

? "A"<>"AB"           && .T.
? "AB"<>"A"           && .F.
? NOT "AB" = "A"      && .F.
? NOT "AB" == "A"     && .T.