A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. SoB Related Questions
From: "arthyyr <arthyyr@yahoo.com>" <arthyyr@yahoo.com>
2. Newbie question...
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
3. Re: Problem with child unit costs
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Newbie question...
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
5. Re: Still stumped
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
6. RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
7. RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
8. Re: Newbie question...
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:48:16 -0000
From: "arthyyr <arthyyr@yahoo.com>" <arthyyr@yahoo.com>
Subject: SoB Related Questions
Hi all,
I've read in a post from last year that a fix is being worked on to
put Immolators back under the Heavy Support choice for the Sisters
of Battle--any word on when this will be fixed (and when Exorcists
and Repressors will be added there too?)
Oh, and what is the deal with having to check that "Elite" box when
adding preachers to your various Sororitas squads? I don't quite
understand it....
Anyway, sorry for being a dunce. Thanks!
--Art
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:22:45 -0000
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
Subject: Newbie question...
Now, I know there has to be an obvious answer for this one, and I'm
sure I'm just missing it. When creating an option that uses the
rang attribute, how do you link it to the stat attribute? I've been
hunting for an example, and I suppose I have just missed it
somewhere.
Basically, all I need to do is use the rang to increment/decrement a
stat. I was not sure if you use 'more' to link it to hidden
options, or...well...you see the issue. All examples welcome.
Thanks, for any help...
Chris
(new to all of this)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:08:32 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with child unit costs
At 07:41 AM 2/21/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>First thanks for trying to help me... I am still stumped.. the heavy
>weapon I thought I deleted he mistake in there it is gone in my
>personal version now the mirror still does not fix my original
>problem though... using the mirror or clone work just fine to change
>the appropriate attribute... but neither one is changing the cost of
>the leader or heavy weapon when I do them... the leader should cost 5
>points to take as a green... 15 as a regular and so on...
>
>this works fine for the unit but I do not know how to make the child
>calculate the costs... right now for testing we are just subtracting
>1 guy from the group to represent the leader... using the 5 points he
>keeps costing as just a privelage of taking him sort of thing
Are you sure the unit and the leader both have the same options, and that
you've given the leader the correct 'mirr' attributes? Are you still using
the 'tabl' attribute to control which options get taken? The unit should
have the options:
qgrn
qreg
qvet
qeli
(All at 'cost')
The leader should have the same options, but at 'auto' or 'hide', and the
following 'Unit local' attributes:
mirr:qgrn
mirr:qreg
mirr:qvet
mirr:qeli
That should sort out your ranks. If you've made any changes to what you
have, upload the files again and I'll take another look; otherwise, I can
go into slightly more detail about any changes you need to make, if you want.
Thanks,
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:14:12 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie question...
At 03:22 AM 2/25/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Now, I know there has to be an obvious answer for this one, and I'm
>sure I'm just missing it. When creating an option that uses the
>rang attribute, how do you link it to the stat attribute? I've been
>hunting for an example, and I suppose I have just missed it
>somewhere.
>
>Basically, all I need to do is use the rang to increment/decrement a
>stat. I was not sure if you use 'more' to link it to hidden
>options, or...well...you see the issue. All examples welcome.
If you have an option with the following attributes:
rang:0-4
stat:X+1
Every time you hit the '+' button, the 'X' statistic should go up by one.
You don't need to do anything to 'link' them, it should happen automatically.
Does that help?
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:51:45 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Still stumped
At 03:17 PM 2/21/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>ok, my file is on there, its "Tanith.40k". Any input would be helpful.
From a while ago, your original problem email said:
>Im attempting to build a file but I keep getting a repeted error saying
>ther is an infinite loop with my child unit/parent unit but such a loop
>doesnt exist. This is a chain of Parentunit/Childunit/subchildunit, if
>that helps.
The "Platoon Command Squad" unit has a size of 4. This means that it can
have from 4 to as many models as you like in it. However, the 'add command
squad' option has this attribute:
unit:zqComsq@abs=1
This means that you are trying to reduce the units size to 1, even though
it has a minimum size of 4, which Army Builder objects to. Change the
attribute to:
unit:zqComsq@abs=4
And all should be well.
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:11:30 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
At 09:39 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Considering that the Army Builder cost me about a weeks worth of groceries,
>or about $60 Dollars (I'm Canadian, so the exchange is a factor.) and so
>that's a fair chunk of change. I certainly haven't felt I've gotten my worth
>out of the product yet. I'm not a WH40K player nor am I a player of most of
>the games that existing files cover. Modifying existing files doesn't do me
>much good when one still needs to understand how the game you're modifying
>works, which I don't. Even the sole Battletech file wasn't much help because
>it's far more complicated than anything I understand from the manual.
>
>The Construction Kit Manual isn't much good. You can toss me allot of "It's
>right here in the manual" comments, but while the information maybe there it
>isn't that readily apparent to a newbie like me. It's technogabble for the
>most part. Sure to someone who may understand already the in's and out's of
>the program and programming in general might not have a problem with it but
>they're not the ones who absolutely need a manual. I've picked up on most of
>what's been taught to me so far quite readily but that doesn't mean the
>manual doesn't have it's gaps. It really needs to simplify it's language or
>have a section added in with such language, explaining the process better.
>It's like where I have my game's statistics and the game rules. The
>statistics are straightforward but they still require an english explanation
>and without one, the overall game isn't much good. The same applies to Army
>Builder in this case.
We understand your concerns regarding the quality of the documentation, but
unfortunately we're heavily engaged in other projects right now; there
simply aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done that we'd like
to. The next time we revise the documentation, we'll do our best to improve
it and incorporate your suggestions.
Incidentally, my apologies if I came over as uncaring and flippant in my
original post, but we're coming up to a major release date here and things
are (as always) a bit hectic.
And again, if you have queries feel free to post them here and I or someone
else will do our best to help out.
Thanks,
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:39:47 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
Greetings,
I'm the one who has to make the decisions around here about what
does/doesn't get done and when, so I thought I should share my thoughts on
this one.
First of all, I'm sorry the Construction Kit documentation hasn't been
overly useful to you. I'm the one who wrote it, so you can point the finger
at me.
There's a LOT of sophistication within Army Builder, and that translates
into a lot of potential complexity if you want to utilize all the power.
I'm a techie, and all of the early data file authors were also techies, so
the documentation is written to that target audience. That unfortunately
makes for a very steep learning curve for non-techies (and even a
moderately steep one for techies). To offset that, we do our best to
provide helpful suggestions on this forum, answering specific questions
that users submit.
The current manual is a reference manual, with very little in the way of
"walkthroughs". A tutorial is present, but that only covers the basics to
get someone started. I'm assuming you've gone through that already. If not,
it's definitely worth a look, as it answers many of the basic questions
that come up.
Here's the problem on this end. We're a TINY company. As of 6 months ago,
our staff consisted of only TWO people. We've thankfully grown a little bit
since then, adding a marketing consultant and Colen as a developer. Please
realize that this staff has to cover sales, marketing, finance,
development, support, the website, blah, blah, blah. We also have TWO
products now, so both need to be serviced. Since we don't have a huge staff
around here, it is a constant juggle to decide what we work on. We have
users clamoring for new features, plus we have authors asking for better
tools and/or better documentation. There are not enough resources around
here to do everything we'd like, so we have to take our best guess as to
what's going to be the optimal course. Regardless of what we choose,
someone is going to be unhappy with the result, and that includes us, since
we honestly would like the product to be a great experience for everyone.
The reality is that that's just not possible, so we do the best we can and
strive to fill in the holes with good technical support (that's the goal,
at least).
Writing good documentation is VERY time-consuming. Writing good tutorials
is even more time-consuming. I'm not sure if you've done either task
before, but it's a huge drain of resources - the same resources that add
new features to the products. Lots of users would argue we should spend
more time adding features. Authors like yourself contend we should improve
the documentation. So it's a juggling act.
When we next update AB, we will definitely work to enhance the
documentation. But we can't do that overnight. In the meantime, please post
your questions to this forum and we'll do our best to answer them. The more
information you can provide about your game, the better we can assist you.
You're welcome to ask open-ended questions, such as "here's the game
mechanic, how should I best model this within AB?". The folks here (which
includes many other data file authors) can usually offer good guidance,
pointing you at the features within AB that you need to utilize for your
game. From there, you can focus in on those features, learn how they work,
ask additional questions as necessary, and ignore all the other stuff that
you don't need. That makes your time with AB as efficient and productive as
possible.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 09:39 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Considering that the Army Builder cost me about a weeks worth of groceries,
>or about $60 Dollars (I'm Canadian, so the exchange is a factor.) and so
>that's a fair chunk of change. I certainly haven't felt I've gotten my worth
>out of the product yet. I'm not a WH40K player nor am I a player of most of
>the games that existing files cover. Modifying existing files doesn't do me
>much good when one still needs to understand how the game you're modifying
>works, which I don't. Even the sole Battletech file wasn't much help because
>it's far more complicated than anything I understand from the manual.
>
>The Construction Kit Manual isn't much good. You can toss me allot of "It's
>right here in the manual" comments, but while the information maybe there it
>isn't that readily apparent to a newbie like me. It's technogabble for the
>most part. Sure to someone who may understand already the in's and out's of
>the program and programming in general might not have a problem with it but
>they're not the ones who absolutely need a manual. I've picked up on most of
>what's been taught to me so far quite readily but that doesn't mean the
>manual doesn't have it's gaps. It really needs to simplify it's language or
>have a section added in with such language, explaining the process better.
>It's like where I have my game's statistics and the game rules. The
>statistics are straightforward but they still require an english explanation
>and without one, the overall game isn't much good. The same applies to Army
>Builder in this case.
>
>Regardless, you've heard the gripe and it's up to the company to decide if
>it's worth acting upon. I won't press the issue any further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:59 -0000
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie question...
Colen...
Yes...that's exactly what I am looking for. Thanks!
-Chris
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. SoB Related Questions
From: "arthyyr <arthyyr@yahoo.com>" <arthyyr@yahoo.com>
2. Newbie question...
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
3. Re: Problem with child unit costs
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Newbie question...
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
5. Re: Still stumped
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
6. RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
7. RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
8. Re: Newbie question...
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:48:16 -0000
From: "arthyyr <arthyyr@yahoo.com>" <arthyyr@yahoo.com>
Subject: SoB Related Questions
Hi all,
I've read in a post from last year that a fix is being worked on to
put Immolators back under the Heavy Support choice for the Sisters
of Battle--any word on when this will be fixed (and when Exorcists
and Repressors will be added there too?)
Oh, and what is the deal with having to check that "Elite" box when
adding preachers to your various Sororitas squads? I don't quite
understand it....
Anyway, sorry for being a dunce. Thanks!
--Art
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:22:45 -0000
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
Subject: Newbie question...
Now, I know there has to be an obvious answer for this one, and I'm
sure I'm just missing it. When creating an option that uses the
rang attribute, how do you link it to the stat attribute? I've been
hunting for an example, and I suppose I have just missed it
somewhere.
Basically, all I need to do is use the rang to increment/decrement a
stat. I was not sure if you use 'more' to link it to hidden
options, or...well...you see the issue. All examples welcome.
Thanks, for any help...
Chris
(new to all of this)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:08:32 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with child unit costs
At 07:41 AM 2/21/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>First thanks for trying to help me... I am still stumped.. the heavy
>weapon I thought I deleted he mistake in there it is gone in my
>personal version now
the mirror still does not fix my original>problem though... using the mirror or clone work just fine to change
>the appropriate attribute... but neither one is changing the cost of
>the leader or heavy weapon when I do them... the leader should cost 5
>points to take as a green... 15 as a regular and so on...
>
>this works fine for the unit but I do not know how to make the child
>calculate the costs... right now for testing we are just subtracting
>1 guy from the group to represent the leader... using the 5 points he
>keeps costing as just a privelage of taking him sort of thing
Are you sure the unit and the leader both have the same options, and that
you've given the leader the correct 'mirr' attributes? Are you still using
the 'tabl' attribute to control which options get taken? The unit should
have the options:
qgrn
qreg
qvet
qeli
(All at 'cost')
The leader should have the same options, but at 'auto' or 'hide', and the
following 'Unit local' attributes:
mirr:qgrn
mirr:qreg
mirr:qvet
mirr:qeli
That should sort out your ranks. If you've made any changes to what you
have, upload the files again and I'll take another look; otherwise, I can
go into slightly more detail about any changes you need to make, if you want.
Thanks,
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:14:12 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie question...
At 03:22 AM 2/25/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Now, I know there has to be an obvious answer for this one, and I'm
>sure I'm just missing it. When creating an option that uses the
>rang attribute, how do you link it to the stat attribute? I've been
>hunting for an example, and I suppose I have just missed it
>somewhere.
>
>Basically, all I need to do is use the rang to increment/decrement a
>stat. I was not sure if you use 'more' to link it to hidden
>options, or...well...you see the issue. All examples welcome.
If you have an option with the following attributes:
rang:0-4
stat:X+1
Every time you hit the '+' button, the 'X' statistic should go up by one.
You don't need to do anything to 'link' them, it should happen automatically.
Does that help?
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:51:45 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Still stumped
At 03:17 PM 2/21/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>ok, my file is on there, its "Tanith.40k". Any input would be helpful.
From a while ago, your original problem email said:
>Im attempting to build a file but I keep getting a repeted error saying
>ther is an infinite loop with my child unit/parent unit but such a loop
>doesnt exist. This is a chain of Parentunit/Childunit/subchildunit, if
>that helps.
The "Platoon Command Squad" unit has a size of 4. This means that it can
have from 4 to as many models as you like in it. However, the 'add command
squad' option has this attribute:
unit:zqComsq@abs=1
This means that you are trying to reduce the units size to 1, even though
it has a minimum size of 4, which Army Builder objects to. Change the
attribute to:
unit:zqComsq@abs=4
And all should be well.
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:11:30 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
At 09:39 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Considering that the Army Builder cost me about a weeks worth of groceries,
>or about $60 Dollars (I'm Canadian, so the exchange is a factor.) and so
>that's a fair chunk of change. I certainly haven't felt I've gotten my worth
>out of the product yet. I'm not a WH40K player nor am I a player of most of
>the games that existing files cover. Modifying existing files doesn't do me
>much good when one still needs to understand how the game you're modifying
>works, which I don't. Even the sole Battletech file wasn't much help because
>it's far more complicated than anything I understand from the manual.
>
>The Construction Kit Manual isn't much good. You can toss me allot of "It's
>right here in the manual" comments, but while the information maybe there it
>isn't that readily apparent to a newbie like me. It's technogabble for the
>most part. Sure to someone who may understand already the in's and out's of
>the program and programming in general might not have a problem with it but
>they're not the ones who absolutely need a manual. I've picked up on most of
>what's been taught to me so far quite readily but that doesn't mean the
>manual doesn't have it's gaps. It really needs to simplify it's language or
>have a section added in with such language, explaining the process better.
>It's like where I have my game's statistics and the game rules. The
>statistics are straightforward but they still require an english explanation
>and without one, the overall game isn't much good. The same applies to Army
>Builder in this case.
We understand your concerns regarding the quality of the documentation, but
unfortunately we're heavily engaged in other projects right now; there
simply aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done that we'd like
to. The next time we revise the documentation, we'll do our best to improve
it and incorporate your suggestions.
Incidentally, my apologies if I came over as uncaring and flippant in my
original post, but we're coming up to a major release date here and things
are (as always) a bit hectic.
And again, if you have queries feel free to post them here and I or someone
else will do our best to help out.
Thanks,
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:39:47 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: RE: Problem with stat formula calculation
Greetings,
I'm the one who has to make the decisions around here about what
does/doesn't get done and when, so I thought I should share my thoughts on
this one.
First of all, I'm sorry the Construction Kit documentation hasn't been
overly useful to you. I'm the one who wrote it, so you can point the finger
at me.
There's a LOT of sophistication within Army Builder, and that translates
into a lot of potential complexity if you want to utilize all the power.
I'm a techie, and all of the early data file authors were also techies, so
the documentation is written to that target audience. That unfortunately
makes for a very steep learning curve for non-techies (and even a
moderately steep one for techies). To offset that, we do our best to
provide helpful suggestions on this forum, answering specific questions
that users submit.
The current manual is a reference manual, with very little in the way of
"walkthroughs". A tutorial is present, but that only covers the basics to
get someone started. I'm assuming you've gone through that already. If not,
it's definitely worth a look, as it answers many of the basic questions
that come up.
Here's the problem on this end. We're a TINY company. As of 6 months ago,
our staff consisted of only TWO people. We've thankfully grown a little bit
since then, adding a marketing consultant and Colen as a developer. Please
realize that this staff has to cover sales, marketing, finance,
development, support, the website, blah, blah, blah. We also have TWO
products now, so both need to be serviced. Since we don't have a huge staff
around here, it is a constant juggle to decide what we work on. We have
users clamoring for new features, plus we have authors asking for better
tools and/or better documentation. There are not enough resources around
here to do everything we'd like, so we have to take our best guess as to
what's going to be the optimal course. Regardless of what we choose,
someone is going to be unhappy with the result, and that includes us, since
we honestly would like the product to be a great experience for everyone.
The reality is that that's just not possible, so we do the best we can and
strive to fill in the holes with good technical support (that's the goal,
at least).
Writing good documentation is VERY time-consuming. Writing good tutorials
is even more time-consuming. I'm not sure if you've done either task
before, but it's a huge drain of resources - the same resources that add
new features to the products. Lots of users would argue we should spend
more time adding features. Authors like yourself contend we should improve
the documentation. So it's a juggling act.
When we next update AB, we will definitely work to enhance the
documentation. But we can't do that overnight. In the meantime, please post
your questions to this forum and we'll do our best to answer them. The more
information you can provide about your game, the better we can assist you.
You're welcome to ask open-ended questions, such as "here's the game
mechanic, how should I best model this within AB?". The folks here (which
includes many other data file authors) can usually offer good guidance,
pointing you at the features within AB that you need to utilize for your
game. From there, you can focus in on those features, learn how they work,
ask additional questions as necessary, and ignore all the other stuff that
you don't need. That makes your time with AB as efficient and productive as
possible.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 09:39 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Considering that the Army Builder cost me about a weeks worth of groceries,
>or about $60 Dollars (I'm Canadian, so the exchange is a factor.) and so
>that's a fair chunk of change. I certainly haven't felt I've gotten my worth
>out of the product yet. I'm not a WH40K player nor am I a player of most of
>the games that existing files cover. Modifying existing files doesn't do me
>much good when one still needs to understand how the game you're modifying
>works, which I don't. Even the sole Battletech file wasn't much help because
>it's far more complicated than anything I understand from the manual.
>
>The Construction Kit Manual isn't much good. You can toss me allot of "It's
>right here in the manual" comments, but while the information maybe there it
>isn't that readily apparent to a newbie like me. It's technogabble for the
>most part. Sure to someone who may understand already the in's and out's of
>the program and programming in general might not have a problem with it but
>they're not the ones who absolutely need a manual. I've picked up on most of
>what's been taught to me so far quite readily but that doesn't mean the
>manual doesn't have it's gaps. It really needs to simplify it's language or
>have a section added in with such language, explaining the process better.
>It's like where I have my game's statistics and the game rules. The
>statistics are straightforward but they still require an english explanation
>and without one, the overall game isn't much good. The same applies to Army
>Builder in this case.
>
>Regardless, you've heard the gripe and it's up to the company to decide if
>it's worth acting upon. I won't press the issue any further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:59 -0000
From: "Chris <christopher@ctmiller.net>" <christopher@ctmiller.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie question...
Colen...
Yes...that's exactly what I am looking for. Thanks!
-Chris
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/