No problem Peter, as I wrote to you privately (and I hope it was not out of
line to do so) I did not ask the original question lightly, though I made it
seem so in some of the replies I gave to you and other of my betters here,
sensing their doubt about my objectives.
Bill
"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions wrote in message
...
Hi Bill,
I misinterpreted, apologies. But I didn't have the slightest intention to
"box you in" !
Cheers,
Peter T
"William Benson" wrote in message
...
Don't know what to say to this Peter. I guess I am entirely sorry for the
matter. I did not feel I was out of line and Norman did say he was glad
to
find out certain facts more clearly. Since you felt the need to box me on
the ears one more time (I already took your point earlier), I hope it
felt
good for one of us.
...Bill
"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions wrote in message
...
Hi Bill,
Not churlish, I think it just shows the limits of your imagination ...
he
he. Or your own constraints on utility. Just because we in our
experience
have not yet found much cause for it does not mean there are not some
in
a
parallel universe who will find abundant uses for this, have been
similarly
misinformed, and will silently thank us for proving all to be well.
:-)
I know this is addressed to Norman but from a third party perspective
slightly perplexing. Though with the smiley I assume entirely light
hearted.
Norman conceded your point very graciously, I thought. However he does
question the practical use of your discovery. Whilst I have no
pretensions
as to being an expert there are a few things I have spent a very
considerable time looking at, and this is one of them. On this basis I
entirely agree with Norman, indeed I implied similar earlier.
You replied previously you were only testing the limits of Excel.
That's
great and always well worth doing. You have discovered for yourself
that
building such a large union, whilst theoretically possible, is not
viable.
Others in a parallel universe can learn simply that, and use other
ways.
Regards,
Peter T
< snip