Patrick Corliss [patrick§quad.net.au] wrote:
> Hi Vic
> 
> My argument was carefully worded and very tight.  Your reply doesn't address
> any of the issues I raised -- you omitted them from your response entirely.

sorry obviously I generalised a little too much for you.

what I said in essence was "equitable allocation" is independent of the value
of the name on question. ill address it more specifically in your other post.

Vic