I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a start," Tim, which does not seem to have logical relationship to the accompanying clause, but I hope, in any case, that some of those prior "confusions" may have had certain elements of the useful to them.
>>> Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> 10/17/16 11:10 AM >>> Yes it was Joseph Macleod. I think in the past Kent you have caused a lot more confusion than this little item but it's a start.
Cheers
Tim
On 17 Oct 2016, at 16:12, Kent Johnson wrote:
I'm sorry, I see that the reference by Duncan was toJosephMacleod, not Ken.