>I'm not PO'd. I'm too easy going of a guy to get PO'd.
>
>I just figured that nightlyreaders post was enough proof to
>see that I wasn't throwing numbers around. But I was wrong to
>think that even that was too simple for you.
>I didn't dawdle, I told you to go to nightlyreaders post, you
>would of found the answer there.
>
>But again, too simple of an idea for you to "chew" on. :lol:

Good for you adam. :-)