David VanHorn wrote:
> And as you pointed out, had the previous number been correct, it was a
> non-problem.
> So, I posted a correction and included the data it was derived from.

It wasn't clear to me that was a correction as apposed to your changing you=
r
mind or being uncertain.

> So can we return to the issue at hand?

Incorrect information, sloppiness, etc, is going to derail a thread.  The
best way to get it back on track is NOT by complaining about it and trying
to pretend it's someone else's fault.

At this point you need to repair your credibility.  Perhaps you could
explain what you are trying to accomplish overall instead of just posting
requirements.  That way maybe we can get some confidence that the
requirements are real and make sense before spending effort on them again.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.