<html> <body> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And this is the last itme I say dead is dead. Chris Solliday</blockquote> Jon - I will, at my peril, ignore  Dr. Baden's assessment that dead is, in fact, dead, and try once again to be clear.  In the interchange below, I asked a question, I didn't propose anything.  I'm asking if there are alternatives to the way the existing data can be manipulated, organized, or structured.  It's a technical question, which Andy Rudoff could probably answer, but which I certainly can't.  For example, would it be possible to retroactively attach  'category tags' to existing messages that could allow them to be consolidated, by such categories, even if they key word was not in the subject line?  I'm baffled as to why my intent keeps getting twisted.  You repeat the reference to the Journal, but my question has nothing to do with creating a parallel data base, nor any other 'format' like the Journal's. If I misconstrue or am otherwise projecting a hint of condescension in the remainder of your post, I apologize, though I vaguely sense that "proof in the puddin' " translates more accurately as "put up or shut up".  Best wishes - David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 08:44 PM 7/19/2008, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I'm not sure what you're saying, especially in relation to the part of my post that you've quoted, in which  I was simply wondering if there were alternate ways in which the existing data could be organized or searched</blockquote> Maybe I'm not sure what you're proposing.  I thought the format was already executed in the PTJ. Make it happen as a trial. Someone has to take that first step... it might as well be you.  Set it up. All this talk is getting tiresome. The proof is in the puddin'. <pre>-- </pre> Regards, Jon Page</blockquote></body> </html>