> > That anything that does not is too broad? Is that what you
> > really want to say?
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying, and if you read further in the message
>(which you clipped off) you'd see that I didn't say that.
Yes, this is what I thought. I'm just making sure we know that we don't have to discuss that issue again (people keep going back to it). You'll note that in my response I did address your alternative for when the ability does seem to be able to work against both kinds of targets (that being using a third party comparison - you still haven't responded to that).
Mike
Powered by hypermail