This is a good reason. However, why in the world did they leave the year 2000 IGI database in place for TempleReady and create almost ten years of duplications? And I assume TR is still using that very same database. That could certainly have solved a lot of unneeded work. Did they discuss that? Michele In a message dated 4/13/2009 8:37:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jncrandell@broadweave.net writes: I suspect a big portion of the delay in putting a time limit in place is because of the kinks in the system where work has been done but is not showing. If a time limit were to be put in place, all of those ordinances not showing would automatically be put through the system and duplicated. A major concern is not to create more duplication, so until the kinks are worked out, I don't expect to see a time limit. **************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000002)

This is the basis for the nFS. And anyone using the old TR, will find the TR does check the submissions made through the nFS. I found out when I discovered there were some completed entries and subsequently did all my submissions through the nFS. David JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: > This is a good reason. > > However, why in the world did they leave the year 2000 IGI database in > place for TempleReady and create almost ten years of duplications? And I > assume TR is still using that very same database. That could certainly have > solved a lot of unneeded work. Did they discuss that? > > Michele