>>Erm. No, of course not. I don't see where Rajesh says it's a not a VFP timer.
>
>It can still be a VFP Timer and not based directly on the VFP base class (subclass in between), thats what I meant.

I knew that.

>
>>Sheesh. Tough crowd.
>
>:-) You'd think I woudln't get this bored with so much work to do. Strange...

Yeah, I hear you. Ya think +I+ have any biddness being here?