What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2with limited free disk spaces?

The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 2:17:12 AM, and on a whim,
Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:

Terry

At one time users of Outlook Express exceeded all the other newsreaders
combined by a factor of 4 / 5 to 1. Now the market share of Outlook
Express / Windows Mail may have declined but it still has the predominant
share of the market. Arguably programme providers should have made efforts
to resolve the type of problems you complain about. They have not. Quote Fix
can resolve some of the problems but it was not provided by the provider of
a newsreader. Why does the market leader have the responsibility to make
changes? Don't the providers of newsreaders with small minority market
shares have any responsibility in this matter?


What? You mean "break" the proper design and function of their
products, just because MS does?

If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"?

Your statement that it is a flaw in Microsoft products is not sustainable.
The products were designed to work the way they do. It is just as logical to
argue that it is the other products are flawed.


Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was
designed for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how
broken is that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster
is top posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting,
it's fixing a stupid design. Proper newsreaders when top posting and
using a sig, will NOT insert a delimiter, to preserve the writing below.
A delimiter in ONLY to be used when bottom posting and the sig is
under the reply.

For years there has been an international body pontificating on standards.
Whilst this is a logical way to resolve differences it's voice has never
been strong enough to overcome the commercial arguments opposing change.


No, MS could care. The ONLY around it is to use their client and then
everything is fine. Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's
the point of using it at all then?

Until two weeks ago I was using Quote Fix but on a Windows XP reinstall I
had more pressing and more important issues to resolve. It does not stop
complaints from the Usenet fanatical fringe but they do diminish. I shall
see if I can find time at the weekend to reinstall Quote Fix.


Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top
post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post.

The issue of delimiters causes problems for some, not all, non-Microsoft
newsreaders. This problem with the subject field is seen in Outlook Express
so it is a reverse situation. It is not really a problem as it is hardly
noticeable. The subject in this thread was overlong and I have wondered
whether it exceeds the normal number of allocated characters?


Other than Bill stating a changed Subject causes OE/WM to break the
thread, I don't see that changing it is any biggie. Ant was instructed
on how to post and he probably won't modify the Subject again, unless
the thread goes OT.

Why do I need to learn the technical details of how newsreaders work in
areas where Outlook Express works for me? If it did not work for me I would
change to one that did. Millions feel like I do on this point. This is why
Microsoft has never felt there is a commercial reason to make the changes
you so desire. You have chosen a newsreader where you encounter these
problems. That is your choice. Please do not complain to me about the
consequences. The choice was yours. Your frustration is self created.


That is the excuse of everyone using OE/WM. Unfortunately, MS wasn't
the first news client for newsgroups. MS in it's normal fashion,
designed a program, disregarded any standards, and basically tells
everyone else, "We have the market share. We don't care what anyone
else does." That's what market dominating companies do, not just MS.

Can you can honestly tell me that having a program INSERT a delimiter
and that same program IGNORES delimiters isn't broken?

Not self created. I took the time to learn how to interact in
newsgroups. And MS newsgroups are far from the only groups. If you
only hang out in MS groups, you will never know how the rest of the
users feel.

You may continue to do nothing and use your broken client. I will
continue to explain to those reading that I didn't wipe all the prior
text out, that it was caused by a broken MS client.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

"Terry R." wrote in message
...
The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:06:47 PM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...

Well, if one changes the subject line in any manner, then quite
logically it becomes a new thread.

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one can argue that a
thread is a function of the newsreader being used to read it. In most
news clients, a thread can contain changing subject lines. Messy,
yes. And I don't normally advocate it. But there it is. :-)

Another way to define a thread is by its posts' headers. There is
certainly logic behind this definition.

The proper way to change a Subject is:

original topic
original topic
new topic (was: original topic)
new topic

Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper
newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used
for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly.

Thanks, Terry. (I thought it didn't look quite right!)

The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 12:21:40 AM, and on a whim,
Gordon pounded out on the keyboard:

"Terry R." wrote in message
...
Hi Bill,

He didn't create "new posts". He just modified the Subject when he
replied. Is it really that big of a deal?



Yes, because in a high volume group most experienced users only display
unread threads, and if there's a modification of the subject line, it can
easily look like a new thread...

Then train the unexperienced users WHEN and HOW to properly change a
Subject. I explained it to Ant and now he understands.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 12:33:25 AM, and on a whim,
Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

Gordon wrote:
"Terry R." wrote in message
...
Hi Bill,

He didn't create "new posts". He just modified the Subject when he
replied. Is it really that big of a deal?


Yes, because in a high volume group most experienced users only display
unread threads, and if there's a modification of the subject line, it can
easily look like a new thread...
--

Exactly. Because in actuality, it is.



Not in actuality. Every change to the Subject in this thread is still
under the original.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 9:28:41 AM, and on a whim,
Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

"Terry R." wrote in message
...
The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:06:47 PM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...

Well, if one changes the subject line in any manner, then quite
logically it becomes a new thread.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one can argue that a
thread is a function of the newsreader being used to read it. In most
news clients, a thread can contain changing subject lines. Messy,
yes. And I don't normally advocate it. But there it is. :-)

Another way to define a thread is by its posts' headers. There is
certainly logic behind this definition.
The proper way to change a Subject is:

original topic
original topic
new topic (was: original topic)
new topic

Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper
newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used
for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly.

Thanks, Terry. (I thought it didn't look quite right!)



You're welcome Dave,

Of course, as you can see, OE doesn't do that right either. sigh...


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry

Replies in line.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Terry R." wrote in message
...
The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 2:17:12 AM, and on a whim,

It was not on a whim!

Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:


I try not to pound the keyboard!

Terry

At one time users of Outlook Express exceeded all the other newsreaders
combined by a factor of 4 / 5 to 1. Now the market share of Outlook
Express / Windows Mail may have declined but it still has the predominant
share of the market. Arguably programme providers should have made
efforts to resolve the type of problems you complain about. They have
not. Quote Fix can resolve some of the problems but it was not provided
by the provider of a newsreader. Why does the market leader have the
responsibility to make changes? Don't the providers of newsreaders with
small minority market shares have any responsibility in this matter?


What? You mean "break" the proper design and function of their products,
just because MS does?


Outlook Express is a functioning product. In what way does the design
prevent it from functioning as Microsoft intended? I have not suggested that
anyone should
break the design of their product. All providers could have amended the
design of their products if they felt it to be necessary. Remember most of
the products we are discussing were designed over 10 years ago with few
design changes in the last 5 years. Outlook Express is arguably provided for
free so few users will pay much for a better service. There has been
insufficient financial incentive to recruit a new design team to fix
compatibility problem.

If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"?

Where did I say it is not a problem?


Your statement that it is a flaw in Microsoft products is not
sustainable. The products were designed to work the way they do. It is
just as logical to argue that it is the other products are flawed.


Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was designed
for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how broken is
that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster is top
posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting, it's
fixing a stupid design.

An opinion many others may not share. Have you designed any highly
successful computer software?

Proper newsreaders when top posting and using a sig, will NOT insert a
delimiter, to preserve the writing below. A delimiter in ONLY to be used
when bottom posting and the sig is under the reply.

For years there has been an international body pontificating on
standards. Whilst this is a logical way to resolve differences it's voice
has never been strong enough to overcome the commercial arguments
opposing change.


No, MS could care.

Yes but they don't!

The ONLY around it is to use their client and then everything is fine.

Yes the solution is as simple as that Don Quixote G.

Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's the point of using it at
all then?

No idea!


Until two weeks ago I was using Quote Fix but on a Windows XP reinstall I
had more pressing and more important issues to resolve. It does not stop
complaints from the Usenet fanatical fringe but they do diminish. I shall
see if I can find time at the weekend to reinstall Quote Fix.


Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top post.
Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post.

Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the latest
message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason


The issue of delimiters causes problems for some, not all, non-Microsoft
newsreaders. This problem with the subject field is seen in Outlook
Express so it is a reverse situation. It is not really a problem as it is
hardly noticeable. The subject in this thread was overlong and I have
wondered whether it exceeds the normal number of allocated characters?


Other than Bill stating a changed Subject causes OE/WM to break the
thread, I don't see that changing it is any biggie.

I do not understand what Bill is saying as it doesn't break threads here.
However he is reading Online ( I read Offline ) and is also I suspect using
different View settings to me. If he replies to one of my posts I may be
able to work out what he is saying.

Ant was instructed on how to post and he probably won't modify the Subject
again, unless the thread goes OT.

Why do I need to learn the technical details of how newsreaders work in
areas where Outlook Express works for me? If it did not work for me I
would change to one that did. Millions feel like I do on this point. This
is why Microsoft has never felt there is a commercial reason to make the
changes you so desire. You have chosen a newsreader where you encounter
these problems. That is your choice. Please do not complain to me about
the consequences. The choice was yours. Your frustration is self created.


That is the excuse of everyone using OE/WM.

It's not an excuse! It's an explanation. Using Quote Fix and using Mime None
rather Quoted Printable are compromises I make to reduce problems when
communicating with less popular mail programmes. I refuse, however, to be
brow beaten into bottom posting!

Unfortunately, MS wasn't the first news client for newsgroups.

True but it opened up the opportunities of email to millions.

MS in it's normal fashion, designed a program, disregarded any standards,
and basically tells everyone else, "We have the market share. We don't
care what anyone else does." That's what market dominating companies do,
not just MS.

That argument is putting the cart before the horse. They designed a product
which everyone wanted. That gave them a dominant market share. It was then
the power it gave them corrupted their philosopy. Now they think they can
ignore users but this did not work out for them with Vista. We shall see how
they respond with Windows 7.


Can you can honestly tell me that having a program INSERT a delimiter and
that same program IGNORES delimiters isn't broken?

It is not broken if Outlook Express works as intended by the designers of
the programme.


Not self created. I took the time to learn how to interact in newsgroups.
And MS newsgroups are far from the only groups. If you only hang out in
MS groups, you will never know how the rest of the users feel.

I have participated in Usenet groups. Like any responsible person I try to
observe the rules of the group. However, many persons coming from Usenet try
to promote / impose the rules from Usenet in the Microsoft newsgroups. Most
users here are not interested. Some rules common to both, like flaming, are
sadly not properly observed.


You may continue to do nothing and use your broken client.

It is not broken.

I will continue to explain to those reading that I didn't wipe all the
prior text out, that it was caused by a broken MS client.

Do just that if it gives you satisfaction.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
Terry

Replies in line.

As are mine.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your sig should appear at the very end of your post. Placing it at the
beginning is illogical. Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards.

"Terry R." wrote in message
...

Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top
post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post.

Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the
latest message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason

How does placing your sig where it belongs make it difficult to read the
post you are replying to? My sig is where it belongs, and I am having no
difficulty whatsoever seeing what is being said in your message.

I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting!

No one is asking (or brow beating you) you to bottom post (Terry R was
merely pointing out various problems he has encountered, including
top-posting). In fact, what you are doing now -- inline posting -- is
preferred for obvious reasons. Context is preserved and readability for
*everyone* who is following the thread is maximized. Contextual inline
posting with generous snipping away of impertinent info is by far
superior to both bottom- and top-posting.

--
Daave

This is what a proper sig looks like. :-)

Gerry wrote:
Bill

I use Outlook Express as well. This insertion of spaces is an odd one but
it
is not a problem.

My experience with Outlook Express is that threading works well. Problems
arise when the user fails to use a reply option when responding to an
existing post.

Well, that may be it - don't know.

Problems also arise when some users fail to reply to the
message they are replying to. Thus I reply to a post and someone intending
to reply to the same person replies to me instead. This can be very
annoying
at times when the later post is saying things I totally disagree with.
They
should be communicating to the other person not me!

I don't think that was the problem in this case, but then again, IF someone
had not used the Reply To in the first place and thus started a new thread,
and then someone replied to that one, and so on, then maybe that was it.

I suspect that with many
newsreaders the distinction does not make the consequences so obvious as
in
Outlook Express. You can see the problem if you compare threading in
Outlook
Express with that in a web based newsreader. Threading in the latter is
not
obvious.You cannot easily see sub-threads.

Changes in the contents of the subject line have no affect on threading.
You
are reading Online whereas I read Offline so we may be employing different
options.

True - I'm reading Online.

What View options have you selected?

Hide read messages
Group messages by conversation

It's just interesting that this problem has only shown up quite recently,
and on a few posts in in here - that's all. Most are threaded just fine.
But a few new people have been posting recently, and I think it's probably
tied into that.

For the record mine are Show All Messages and I toggle between Show
Replies to my Messages and Group Messages by Conversation.

--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Well, I'm using OE. I guess one could lump OE into "some newsreaders".
:-)

Gerry wrote:
Bill

From here what you say is not true. However, that is not to say that it
may
not be true with some newsreaders.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Terry R. wrote:
The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:18:47 AM, and on a
whim, Gordon pounded out on the keyboard:

"Terry R." wrote in message
...
The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:01:34 PM, and on
a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

Why are there multiple separate posts on this with just some slight
variations in the subject line? One subject line for it is quite
enough.

There is only one thread I see, and the same subject for all.

There's at least two - this one, with this subject line
"What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2
with
limited free disk spaces?"

and one with the subject line of
"What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. S"

Notice the difference?


Bill stated, "separate posts". As I said, there is only one "thread"
here. Anyone can change the subject line at any time.

But you are correct that within this thread, some changed the Subject.
But I don't have my headers set to show the full width, as usually a
Subject line isn't so long, so I didn't notice the change at the end.

If one changes the spacing in the subject line, as was done, it shows
up
as a new thread in OE. IOW, it's not tiered or grouped underneath
the
previous ones. Presumably the OP did this to create more responses.

Daave

Further replies in line.

"Daave" wrote in message
...




Your sig should appear at the very end of your post.

It would be if I was top posting as I normally do.

Placing it at the beginning is illogical.

It is logical to place it after the narative of your message. The content of
previous messages is not part of your reply.

Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards.

Usenet Standards are not part of the Rules for Microsoft newsgroups. If the
Usenet fanatics had their way they would ban the use of Microsoft Outlook
Express from the Microsoft mewsgroups. Is that logical?



How does placing your sig where it belongs make it difficult to read the
post you are replying to? My sig is where it belongs, and I am having no
difficulty whatsoever seeing what is being said in your message.

I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting!

No one is asking (or brow beating you) you to bottom post (Terry R was
merely pointing out various problems he has encountered, including
top-posting).

Yes but sometimes you need to exist in the real world and not the world you
would like to live in.

In fact, what you are doing now -- inline posting -- is preferred for
obvious reasons.

It is only helpful if you are having to respond to a number of points. It
can be very confusing unless you snip redundant matter. Users often don't.

Context is preserved and readability for *everyone* who is following the
thread is maximized. Contextual inline posting with generous snipping away
of impertinent info is by far superior to both bottom- and top-posting.

Impertinent?

In certain circumstances but not in others.


--
Daave

This is what a proper sig looks like. :-)


No it's the way you like it. I prefer something more elaborate.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Terry R. wrote:

Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top
post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post.

The following Registry fix will help for Outhouse users if they prefer
to bottom post:

To add your reply to the end of the newsgroup message. Locate the
following registry key:

[HKCU\Identities\{Identity-GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0]

DWORD
Reply At End

Value
1


To add your signature to the end of the newsgroup message. Locate the
following registry key:

[HKCU\Identities\{Identity-GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook
Express\5.0\signatures\00000000]

DWORD
end

Value
1

--
William Crawford

On a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:


Outlook Express is a functioning product. In what way does the design
prevent it from functioning as Microsoft intended? I have not suggested that
anyone should
break the design of their product. All providers could have amended the
design of their products if they felt it to be necessary. Remember most of
the products we are discussing were designed over 10 years ago with few
design changes in the last 5 years. Outlook Express is arguably provided for
free so few users will pay much for a better service. There has been
insufficient financial incentive to recruit a new design team to fix
compatibility problem.


It's about the delimiter and when it should be inserted and how a
program deals with it when it is in a post. I'm not going to say it again.

If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"?

Where did I say it is not a problem?


Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was designed
for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how broken is
that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster is top
posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting, it's
fixing a stupid design.

An opinion many others may not share. Have you designed any highly
successful computer software?


Opinion? Hardly. Judicious snipping is a general guideline when threads
are long. Having a MS client insert a delimiter doesn't snip, it wipes
everything out. All that is left is what the OE user wrote. Like the
world revolves around only what they say.


Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's the point of using it at
all then?

No idea!


We agree on that.


Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the latest
message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason


When you reply to an email or news message, the sender is shown in the
attribution. Including the signature in the message text is unnecessary.

A lot of groups request bottom posting and no snipping. This way a user
can go to the last post in a thread and read everything, top to bottom.
Novel idea isn't it? Reading top to bottom? Much better than having
to go through each post in a thread starting at the beginning to figure
out what was said, what the suggestions for resolution were, and whether
it was resolved.


It's not an excuse! It's an explanation. Using Quote Fix and using Mime None
rather Quoted Printable are compromises I make to reduce problems when
communicating with less popular mail programmes. I refuse, however, to be
brow beaten into bottom posting!


I never brought up top or bottom posting. That's not the issue.


That argument is putting the cart before the horse. They designed a product
which everyone wanted. That gave them a dominant market share. It was then
the power it gave them corrupted their philosopy. Now they think they can
ignore users but this did not work out for them with Vista. We shall see how
they respond with Windows 7.


It's a start by not including any mail client. But I'm sure there will
be lots of opportunities for them to point users at Windows Live Services.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Fri Mar 13 2009 13:15:05 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:


Your sig should appear at the very end of your post.

It would be if I was top posting as I normally do.


Again, to me it's really not an issue where you put your sig. But since
you are using a sig, the delimiter is placed where it shouldn't If you
look at the top line (attrition line), you see your name there, so
putting your sig in a top posted reply is redundant. That's why sig
delimiters are used.

Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards.

Usenet Standards are not part of the Rules for Microsoft newsgroups. If the
Usenet fanatics had their way they would ban the use of Microsoft Outlook
Express from the Microsoft mewsgroups. Is that logical?


After all these years, MS is finally coming out with a browser that will
be W3C "compliant". There approach to browsing caused most of the
issues we deal with today. But all the MS fanatics kept saying, "IE is
the best!" And with Windows 7, OE/WM gets tossed.

No it's the way you like it. I prefer something more elaborate.


Gerry,

Thank you for putting your sig at the end, if only for this discussion.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry R. wrote:

The proper way to change a Subject is:

original topic
original topic
new topic (was: original topic)
new topic

Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper
newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used
for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly.

Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what
happens.

Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a
different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed?

The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:11:57 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

Terry R. wrote:

The proper way to change a Subject is:

original topic
original topic
new topic (was: original topic)
new topic

Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper
newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used
for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly.

Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what
happens.

Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a
different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed?



Yep. Look at it now. This is what a "proper newsreader" is supposed to
do with the Subject change. I don't know why it removed OT either.
That isn't supposed to happen. It's a buggy client, no doubt. I know
they all have bugs, but these discussed here are particularly annoying,
especially for newsgroups.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:11:57 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

Terry R. wrote:

The proper way to change a Subject is:

original topic
original topic
new topic (was: original topic)
new topic

Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper
newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used
for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly.

Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what
happens.

Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a
different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed?



Dave,

See my reply to my above post when I changed the Subject. You can see
how it should have changed, as opposed to how OE didn't change it (but
removed the OT).


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.