Next message: Frank Reed: "Re: Index Error"
On Tue, 4 May 2004 17:11:15 -0500, Ken Gebhart wrote:
>on 5/4/04 8:45 AM, Jim Thompson at wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> The minute I hit the send button on my original message I felt bad about
>> including Celestaire's name instead of just making an anonymous quote to
>> illustrate how lawyers might interpret sextant definitions. I was overtired
>> after a night shift and got caught up in the moment without thinking clearly
>> about how the message could be misinterpreted. My intention certainly was
>> not to embarass Celestaire, if that is what happened. I apologize. It was
>> silly of me.
>>
>> Meanwhile I continue to be very grateful to Celestaire for your wonderful
>> service to me. Keep me as a customer?
>>
>> Jim Thompson
>>
>> www.jimthompson.net
>> Outgoing mail scanned by Norton Antivirus
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>Jim,
>No problem. I answered only because I thought the various (legal) ways a
>sextant might be viewed may be of interest to the group. Those with some
>extra time to spare might chime in how their respective countries classify
>sextants.
>
And I for one am glad you did. I found it fascinating. Thanks you
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
Ask not where the buck stops. . . . .
