I have received e-mail, rather aggressively worded IMO, asserting that I made a mistake in one of my on-line indices. Some comments were made with a very non-PC implication. I didn't take umbrage at his saying I have mistakes; I know I do. For one thing there's a misspelt name. The fact he asserts is error, however, is NOT one of mine. I answered that I will re-check the source; if the names are in there, they stay, right or wrong. I further pointed out that his comments were invalid (and told him why) without commenting on the implication. Now, I have re-checked the source and the names ARE in the source, in the place speficied on-line. However. The entry is incomplete and what is written has been carefully lined thru (once) as has the note See Other Book. The Other Book has the complete entry, underscored. I clearly decided the first time thru that since they WERE there and since they WERE legible, I should include them. I can strike-over the names in HTML, just as they were in the book, if I have to, but I still feel that they were in the source, they should be in the index. What say ye? Cheryl *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Cheryl Singhal (Singhals@erols.com) http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cpafug http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvhampsh/ http://www.capaccess.org/com/troop763 http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/blyton/772/ (DAR) http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap http://members.fortunecity.com/csinghal1/ (UDC)