Hi Corp.

Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!
> I understood your point and acknowledge.
>
> (You sure it wasn't better covered by 4200 BC?)
> .... don't reply to that! ;-)

K. Recent studies suggest it may actually have been much later, c. 3,600BC....How 'bout them apples?

> Over the years you have built a brilliant cache
> of reasons to consider such as highly likely .
> Thanks for that again!

Thank you my friend. Just glad at least some people read it.

> It would take a decent highly interesting book to
> relay them to the greater 'unwashed and currently
> deluded', but I hope you actually do so (it) some
> day!

I started earlier this year, but find it hard to keep at it. It goes in spurts. I hope someday comes too. Thanks though.

> My utter applause for the grace, focus, restraint
> and determination you have shown in this thread.

I am doing my best to keep my terets under control. Which is difficult....

> However, you realise their attention ( & knowledge
> retention) span.... lasts only to next week?
> Then it's on again....

But this thread will be here forever.
Thanks Graham.