Len,

At no point in this thread have I agreed with you on this. I think you and Andrew overreacted to Nancy's post. Maybe it's just a "two countries separated by a common language" thing. We will just have to agree to disagree on the "rudeness" of the message.

>But, thank you for agreeing that I am right (in as much as that Nancy's theory was (possibly) as equally as "terribly wrong" as Andrews). As I said - I regret getting involved in this as well - but comments like Nancy's to Andrew are completely out of order - & just as much as she dislikes "FUD", I dislike rudeness & I thought her theory was "FUD" - on the basis of the evidence given in the original problem - she obviously hadn't had time to test her ideas, so why open her mouth to be so abusive. Dhe claims to accept criticism when she may be wrong, I hope she is listening now.
>
>(Or maybe she can explain why she is right, bearing in mind the problem with sys(5)).