Mike...

>Not that I care, but this is the second time you've done something and denied >it in recent history.

What? The written words are there in this post to you Mike. YOU took it as a burn and I responded letting you know that it was not. What's up with that?

You are not all knowing and all seeing. If you took my first response to you as a burn you are WRONG. Believe anything you wish but you are wrong.


Since we are on the subject what's up with you telling me that "I am wasting my time" by building a document her on the UT reflecting recommended books for VFP.
Just becasue YOU would not look for it does not mean that others will not. You tell me what to do... and now you are telling others that they should not have enthusiam for what is being done. What's up with that?

>Whats the purpose of the "< g >" at the end there?

The purpose of the < g > was to indicate the light heartedness of the response as it is with EVERY BODY ELSES < G >! Why do you assign bad intent to MY response?