>>Thanks for the additional feedback. It makes things clearer vs what I perceived initially as a "go peddle your papers elsewhere" remark.
>
>Well, it certainly wasn't intended that way. For my part, I must admit that, upon re-reading my original post to you, that the phrasing certainly could have been done better to more clearly indicate what I was trying to convey. Unfortunately, I don't have an editor to work with for my posts, and my first drafts usually leave something to be desired.< g >
>
>I have considered carefully your idea. Unfortunately, I don't see the utility that you do. Perhaps it's because that I haven't worked in an environment that supports it. Perhaps it's just a "blind spot" for me. I don't know.
>
>What I haven't considered carefully is how easy or hard it would be to implement such an idea. On the surface (or at least superficially) it doesn't seem like it would be that hard. There may be some things that would either make it extremely difficult or, perhaps, impossible.

Are you thinking about running for political office? This soft-shoe is so light, it defies gravity:-)