On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:37:59 +1100, David Strike <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:52 PM, Bjorn Vang Jensen wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>> > No follow-up by me on this subject any time in the near future.  Old
>> > stuff.  Been there many times before.
>
>> Too bad. There is probably nobody on this list who could really explain
>> these issues better than you :-(
>
>I feel obliged to second that!  :-)

Gentlemen, I thank you for your comprehension and vote of confidence.


>It may be "old stuff" to Bob, but the good "stuff" is always worth
>repeating - and in my case it often needs to be before it finally sinks in!
>:-)
>
>Strike

You're just being modest!  Haven't you met our Dear Friend Giovanni? <BWG>

Besides, I have already been FALSELY accused by the you-know-whos <G> of
(a) not having read a post which I did and understood, and (b) being
"totally wrong" by a foreigner who can't read English very well.  :-)

Bjorn, nothing will "guarantee" my return to explain anything, especially
to the you-know-whos because of the I-know-whats-to-expect in the
deja-vus.  <EWG>

"The total of non-overlapping parts of an entity cannot exceed 100%" is
not that hard a concept for you to explain to them, is it? :-) You
correctly asked the question "Why" didn't you?  I already explained
the why and why it SHOULDN'T.  The readers got what they paid for.
No more freebies.  :-))

-- Bob.