In message <9293706050AB4AD483A8D3C172A23E57@nednulb6bx16vi>, N & K Chestnut <nkopportunity@gorge.net> writes: >Yes, UNKNOWN can be used.  However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN >when that kind of situation comes up, again.  It may be strange to have >20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary.  Don't use an UNKNOWN a >second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in >both cases. In that case, UNKNOWN wasn't what I was thinking of; that's just treating it as another name. I had the feeling that, at some point in the past, there was something you could enter that did _not_ become a "name". >  >Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you >use the name), but the maiden surname is not known.  Thus, you could >have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN.  Don't I use Jane ? and ? Smith ; I seem to remember that "?" has some generic use in this way. [] >I like to make surnames in all capitals.  It makes scanning easier and >faster. [] You are not alone, though I am not with you. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vomit (I came, I saw, I was ill) - mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk, 1998