Re: VARHO measurements used for assessing patients' progress

[Guest guest]

I have been told it represents where the person was at the END of the

previous session after you worked on them??? . . .

VARHO measurements used for assessing patients'

progress

Can anyone help with the following problem?

A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83.

This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the patient

returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results of the

calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment), states

that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were

83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23 points)

between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report) and what

Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?

Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by using

the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values for

today's measurements.

This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ

gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the Forum.

It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something for QXCI

to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased to hear

from you.

All the best

Maxwell Fraval

.............................................

[Guest guest]

Dear friens & users of the QXCI,

Here is the reply given by Bill .

Kind regards,

Francisco ez - Moderator

Dear Maxwell:

Technically, we are measuring very subtle volt and amp changes at the electrodes on the forehead. This is figured in changes in electro potential that happen between the limbs a forehead. Subtle changes measurements are made on the forehead these changing electro potentials offer us wildly variant waveforms as we compare the changes over a span of time. A Fourier wave form analysis program is then applied to allow us to observe the number of times a type of waveform is observed.

One the Clasp program itself, you will find in the EEG panel a button that explains all of this.

Each time a wave form pattern is observed, it adds to the number under that heading. So what we see at the end of each 1 minutes scan is the amount of that wave form as it appears. Now, the limitations since are not placing the electrode over vast quantities of the brain as in other EEG, so the data that we received is not as pure as more expensive EEG equipment valued at 50,000USD more. These will use 50 different electrodes over all of the brain and necessitates shaving the hair, vast time and training, for the technician and the interpreter.

We have made a shorter version, sacrificing accuracy for convenience. Thus the scores should be used as ‘trends’ and not as absolute, undeniable, scientific facts. The temp of the room is 70 degrees, this is a hard number. It is measured different from 71 degrees. The probability of rain tomorrow is 70 percent, the probability is 71 percent….this is not viewed as a difference because this is a soft number or a probability number the QXCI should be seen as soft numbers recognizing a difference between 51 and 50 is not that great. The user of the QXCI must loose anal-retentive hard number analysis and gain intuitive patient interface and probability theory because the goal of the QXCI is to tallow a soft and convenient interface but that interface does not take preference over a patient’s feelings or perspective. The introspective feelings of a patient are more important to us than the numbers. A left-brain anal-retentive linear scientist does not make a good doctor. A Doctor is better if he is using intuitive probability theory and uses the QXCI as a tool but not as a replacement for patient interconnection.

How does the patient change as the number’s change? Because the QXCI does not just measures but also does therapy, thereby the numbers always do change, as that we are seeing with every new set of numbers, we are seeing what the therapy might have improved or changed. There are many safeguards in the system to prevent the QXCI from generating patient problems. Use of the brain wave program is therapeutic an the end result after a 5 minute session the patient should feel more calm, better able to retrieve unconscious thoughts, improve memory, and hopefully a more positive mental perspective. As long as the positive mental perspective is not fought by the therapist, the patient should improve. And by working on one dysfunction in the brain wave, cascading provocations and results, might produce dramatic changes in many other areas of the brain. We must loose our linear cause and effect perspective, replace it with fractal, non-linear causeS producing effectS, and sometimes the smallest stimulus in one tiny area can have dramatic effects into another apparently disconnected area, but no parts of the body are truly disconnected. We really are a whole operating in a fractal dynamic.

Bill Maxwell Fraval <mmfraval@...> wrote:

Can anyone help with the following problem?A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83. This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the patient returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results of the calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment), states that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were 83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23 points) between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report) and what Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by using the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values for today's measurements.This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the Forum.It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something for QXCI to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased to hear from you.All the bestMaxwell Fraval............................................

[Guest guest]

I have some problems with the sentence A left brain etc..... doctor does not make a good doctor. To my opinion it needs both The left brain to stay grounded to calculate and the right intuitive brain to listen ( in trance) to the subconscious mind of the client. Maybe it is because I am working on this subject myself :-)) this lifetime violet

Re: VARHO measurements used for assessing patients' progress

Dear friens & users of the QXCI,

Here is the reply given by Bill .

Kind regards,

Francisco ez - Moderator

Dear Maxwell:

Technically, we are measuring very subtle volt and amp changes at the electrodes on the forehead. This is figured in changes in electro potential that happen between the limbs a forehead. Subtle changes measurements are made on the forehead these changing electro potentials offer us wildly variant waveforms as we compare the changes over a span of time. A Fourier wave form analysis program is then applied to allow us to observe the number of times a type of waveform is observed.

One the Clasp program itself, you will find in the EEG panel a button that explains all of this.

Each time a wave form pattern is observed, it adds to the number under that heading. So what we see at the end of each 1 minutes scan is the amount of that wave form as it appears. Now, the limitations since are not placing the electrode over vast quantities of the brain as in other EEG, so the data that we received is not as pure as more expensive EEG equipment valued at 50,000USD more. These will use 50 different electrodes over all of the brain and necessitates shaving the hair, vast time and training, for the technician and the interpreter.

We have made a shorter version, sacrificing accuracy for convenience. Thus the scores should be used as ‘trends’ and not as absolute, undeniable, scientific facts. The temp of the room is 70 degrees, this is a hard number. It is measured different from 71 degrees. The probability of rain tomorrow is 70 percent, the probability is 71 percent….this is not viewed as a difference because this is a soft number or a probability number the QXCI should be seen as soft numbers recognizing a difference between 51 and 50 is not that great. The user of the QXCI must loose anal-retentive hard number analysis and gain intuitive patient interface and probability theory because the goal of the QXCI is to tallow a soft and convenient interface but that interface does not take preference over a patient’s feelings or perspective. The introspective feelings of a patient are more important to us than the numbers. A left-brain anal-retentive linear scientist does not make a good doctor. A Doctor is better if he is using intuitive probability theory and uses the QXCI as a tool but not as a replacement for patient interconnection.

How does the patient change as the number’s change? Because the QXCI does not just measures but also does therapy, thereby the numbers always do change, as that we are seeing with every new set of numbers, we are seeing what the therapy might have improved or changed. There are many safeguards in the system to prevent the QXCI from generating patient problems. Use of the brain wave program is therapeutic an the end result after a 5 minute session the patient should feel more calm, better able to retrieve unconscious thoughts, improve memory, and hopefully a more positive mental perspective. As long as the positive mental perspective is not fought by the therapist, the patient should improve. And by working on one dysfunction in the brain wave, cascading provocations and results, might produce dramatic changes in many other areas of the brain. We must loose our linear cause and effect perspective, replace it with fractal, non-linear causeS producing effectS, and sometimes the smallest stimulus in one tiny area can have dramatic effects into another apparently disconnected area, but no parts of the body are truly disconnected. We really are a whole operating in a fractal dynamic.

Bill Maxwell Fraval <mmfraval@...> wrote:

Can anyone help with the following problem?A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83. This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the patient returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results of the calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment), states that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were 83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23 points) between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report) and what Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by using the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values for today's measurements.This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the Forum.It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something for QXCI to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased to hear from you.All the bestMaxwell Fraval............................................

[Guest guest]

VARHO measurements used for assessing patients'

> progress

>

>

> Can anyone help with the following problem?

>

> A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83.

> This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the patient

> returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results of the

> calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment), states

> that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were

> 83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23 points)

> between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report) and

what

> Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?

>

> Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by using

> the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values for

> today's measurements.

>

> This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

>

> I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ

> gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the Forum.

>

> It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something for

QXCI

> to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased to hear

> from you.

>

> All the best

>

> Maxwell Fraval

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ............................................

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Beth,

If this is so, then it is even more depressing because , since I have

been aware of this question, many of the patients' Clasp measurement for

the last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a result of calibration at

the start of the last visit) show an apparent deterioration. Is that

possible/probable?

All the best

Maxwell

At 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote:

I have been told it represents

where the person was at the END of the

previous session after you worked on them??? . . .

VARHO measurements used for assessing

patients'

progress

Can anyone help with the following problem?

A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of

93,61,61,74,83.

This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the

patient

returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results of

the

calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment),

states

that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were

83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23 points)

between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report) and

what

Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?

Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by

using

the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values for

today's measurements.

This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters. QXCI

HQ

gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the

Forum.

It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something for

QXCI

to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased to

hear

from you.

All the best

Maxwell Fraval

.............................................

[Guest guest]

Movements in both directions are possible. Look for why the treatment may not be holding, what in the client's lifestyle is obstructing progress. The most powerful therapies for Varho are the auto therapies..esp. the auto trivector. If there is intricnsically low vitality then the therpies need to be focused on rebuilding and zapping, detox etc. that require resourcs may deplete them.

Kelsey

Re: VARHO measurements used for assessing patients' progress

Hi Beth,If this is so, then it is even more depressing because , since I have been aware of this question, many of the patients' Clasp measurement for the last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a result of calibration at the start of the last visit) show an apparent deterioration. Is that possible/probable?All the bestMaxwellAt 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote:

I have been told it represents where the person was at the END of theprevious session after you worked on them??? . . .

[Guest guest]

The # not show to much differences,but after when detox happening

peoples even fealing bad.That fact is not a secret.After chemotherapy

not the cancer killing patiens but the toxic material what relesed by

the decay cancer cells.giorgie

> >I have been told it represents where the person was at the END of

the

> >previous session after you worked on them??? . . .

> >

> >

> > VARHO measurements used for assessing

patients'

> >progress

> >

> >

> >Can anyone help with the following problem?

> >

> >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a VARHO of

93,61,61,74,83.

> >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the report. When the

patient

> >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when showing the results

of the

> >calibration for that day (during and after the matrix assessment),

states

> >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the 11th April were

> >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one case by 23

points)

> >between what was actually measured last time (and saved to report)

and what

> >Clasp now states to be the values for the last visit?

> >

> >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of the patient by

using

> >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit against the values

for

> >today's measurements.

> >

> >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

> >

> >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to QXCI headquarters.

QXCI HQ

> >gave me a patronising response and suggested I post this to the

Forum.

> >

> >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and therefore something

for QXCI

> >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I would be pleased

to hear

> >from you.

> >

> >All the best

> >

> >Maxwell Fraval

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >............................................

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is most definitely a gltch.

I keep a paper trail of the VARHOPE measurements.

There is a lot of misinformation on the QX.

If anyone wants the unbiased truth call me @

510 530 1836.

All the best,

Ari

--- Maxwell Fraval <mmfraval@...> wrote:

> Hi Beth,

>

> If this is so, then it is even more depressing

> because , since I have been

> aware of this question, many of the patients' Clasp

> measurement for the

> last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a result

> of calibration at the

> start of the last visit) show an apparent

> deterioration. Is that

> possible/probable?

>

> All the best

>

> Maxwell

>

> At 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote:

> >I have been told it represents where the person was

> at the END of the

> >previous session after you worked on them??? . . .

> >

> >

> > VARHO measurements used for

> assessing patients'

> >progress

> >

> >

> >Can anyone help with the following problem?

> >

> >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a

> VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83.

> >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the

> report. When the patient

> >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when

> showing the results of the

> >calibration for that day (during and after the

> matrix assessment), states

> >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the

> 11th April were

> >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one

> case by 23 points)

> >between what was actually measured last time (and

> saved to report) and what

> >Clasp now states to be the values for the last

> visit?

> >

> >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of

> the patient by using

> >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit

> against the values for

> >today's measurements.

> >

> >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

> >

> >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to

> QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ

> >gave me a patronising response and suggested I post

> this to the Forum.

> >

> >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and

> therefore something for QXCI

> >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I

> would be pleased to hear

> >from you.

> >

> >All the best

> >

> >Maxwell Fraval

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >............................................

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear friend & user of the QXCI,

This is a peer group and it is intended as a support and knowledge tool to our system. Please feel free to air your views here, whether positive or negative. You might be surprised to find that many so called glitches, are not. On the same token no software program in continuos development is free from those - and ours is not exception.

I as the Moderator of this group and 'Ambassador' of QX Ltd. to the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese speaking 'Worlds' will not censor in any way your comments as long as they are respectful.

It has never been my policy to hush software glitches or miss-inform users, pretending we as a company are faultless. That is why 'to throw a stone and hide the hand' is not an attitude I approve of. Let us all learn from each other in a open and sincere fashion for our mutual benefit.

I very much look forward to posting your views in due course.

Francisco ez

Ari Klein <arionsafari@...> wrote:

Hi All,This is most definitely a gltch.I keep a paper trail of the VARHOPE measurements.There is a lot of misinformation on the QX.If anyone wants the unbiased truth call me @ 510 530 1836.All the best,Ari--- Maxwell Fraval wrote:> Hi Beth,> > If this is so, then it is even more depressing> because , since I have been > aware of this question, many of the patients' Clasp> measurement for the > last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a result> of calibration at the > start of the last visit) show an apparent> deterioration. Is that > possible/probable?> > All the best> > Maxwell> > At 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote:> >I have been told it represents where the person was> at the END of the> >previous session after you worked on them??? . . .> >> >> > VARHO measurements used for> assessing patients'> >progress> >> >> >Can anyone help with the following problem?> >> >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a> VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83.> >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the> report. When the patient> >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when> showing the results of the> >calibration for that day (during and after the> matrix assessment), states> >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the> 11th April were> >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one> case by 23 points)> >between what was actually measured last time (and> saved to report) and what> >Clasp now states to be the values for the last> visit?> >> >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of> the patient by using> >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit> against the values for> >today's measurements.> >> >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.> >> >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to> QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ> >gave me a patronising response and suggested I post> this to the Forum.> >> >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and> therefore something for QXCI> >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I> would be pleased to hear> >from you.> >> >All the best> >> >Maxwell Fraval> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >............................................> >> >

[Guest guest]

ari...please tell the truth here.....

>From: Ari Klein

>Reply-qxci-english >qxci-english >Subject: Re: VARHO measurements used for assessing patients' progress >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:19:59 -0700 (PDT) > >Hi All, >This is most definitely a gltch. >I keep a paper trail of the VARHOPE measurements. >There is a lot of misinformation on the QX. >If anyone wants the unbiased truth call me @ >510 530 1836. >All the best, >Ari >--- Maxwell Fraval wrote: > > Hi Beth, > > > > If this is so, then it is even more depressing > > because , since I have been > > aware of this question, many of the patients' Clasp > > measurement for the > > last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a result > > of calibration at the > > start of the last visit) show an apparent > > deterioration. Is that > > possible/probable? > > > > All the best > > > > Maxwell > > > > At 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote: > > >I have been told it represents where the person was > > at the END of the > > >previous session after you worked on them??? . . . > > > > > > > > > VARHO measurements used for > > assessing patients' > > >progress > > > > > > > > >Can anyone help with the following problem? > > > > > >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a > > VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83. > > >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the > > report. When the patient > > >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when > > showing the results of the > > >calibration for that day (during and after the > > matrix assessment), states > > >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the > > 11th April were > > >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one > > case by 23 points) > > >between what was actually measured last time (and > > saved to report) and what > > >Clasp now states to be the values for the last > > visit? > > > > > >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of > > the patient by using > > >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit > > against the values for > > >today's measurements. > > > > > >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense. > > > > > >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to > > QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ > > >gave me a patronising response and suggested I post > > this to the Forum. > > > > > >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and > > therefore something for QXCI > > >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I > > would be pleased to hear > > >from you. > > > > > >All the best > > > > > >Maxwell Fraval > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >............................................ > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

As I mentioned the VARHOPE NUMBERS DO NOT RECORD

ACCURATELY.

This is most definitely a gltch.

>I keep a paper trail of the VARHOPE measurements, try

this yourself.

Peace and best wishes to all,

Ari

>From: Ari Klein

>Reply-qxci-english

>qxci-english

>Subject: Re: VARHO measurements used

for assessing patients' progress

>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:19:59 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Hi All,

>This is most definitely a gltch.

>I keep a paper trail of the VARHOPE measurements.

>There is a lot of misinformation on the QX.

>If anyone wants the unbiased truth call me @

>510 530 1836.

>All the best,

>Ari

>--- Maxwell Fraval wrote:

> > Hi Beth,

> >

> > If this is so, then it is even more depressing

> > because , since I have been

> > aware of this question, many of the patients'

Clasp

> > measurement for the

> > last visit (as opposed to the one saved as a

result

> > of calibration at the

> > start of the last visit) show an apparent

> > deterioration. Is that

> > possible/probable?

> >

> > All the best

> >

> > Maxwell

> >

> > At 11:09 PM 27/05/03 -0400, you wrote:

> > >I have been told it represents where the person

was

> > at the END of the

> > >previous session after you worked on them??? . .

..

> > >

> > >

> > > VARHO measurements used

for

> > assessing patients'

> > >progress

> > >

> > >

> > >Can anyone help with the following problem?

> > >

> > >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a

> > VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83.

> > >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the

> > report. When the patient

> > >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when

> > showing the results of the

> > >calibration for that day (during and after the

> > matrix assessment), states

> > >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on

the

> > 11th April were

> > >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one

> > case by 23 points)

> > >between what was actually measured last time (and

> > saved to report) and what

> > >Clasp now states to be the values for the last

> > visit?

> > >

> > >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress

of

> > the patient by using

> > >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit

> > against the values for

> > >today's measurements.

> > >

> > >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense.

> > >

> > >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to

> > QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ

> > >gave me a patronising response and suggested I

post

> > this to the Forum.

> > >

> > >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and

> > therefore something for QXCI

> > >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I

> > would be pleased to hear

> > >from you.

> > >

> > >All the best

> > >

> > >Maxwell Fraval

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >............................................

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I understand that all views are published here so if you ahve something contributory to say ari then say it out loud!

This is not a glitch..the monitoring with the client continues after retest varho..look at the graphicon in auto therapies with no therpy..we are totally dynamic.

The confusion is that when you save varho retest this is at that time and when you save this to report it is at taht time..however the program remembers the final value before you cose the program..so if like me you dont use saved report but pen and paper it is no problem.

You have a way to address this behaviour.

Kelsey

VARHO measurements used for > > assessing patients' > > >progress > > > > > > > > >Can anyone help with the following problem? > > > > > >A test done on patient A on 11th April measures a > > VARHO of 93,61,61,74,83. > > >This is saved at the end of the treatment in the > > report. When the patient > > >returns on the 17th April, the computer, when > > showing the results of the > > >calibration for that day (during and after the > > matrix assessment), states > > >that the VARHO values for the previous visit on the > > 11th April were > > >83,84,61,85,80. There is a big difference (in one > > case by 23 points) > > >between what was actually measured last time (and > > saved to report) and what > > >Clasp now states to be the values for the last > > visit? > > > > > >Clasp then goes on to plot the relative progress of > > the patient by using > > >the (incorrect) values for the previous visit > > against the values for > > >today's measurements. > > > > > >This makes the whole comparison a nonsense. > > > > > >I put this to Kelsey who referred me on to > > QXCI headquarters. QXCI HQ > > >gave me a patronising response and suggested I post > > this to the Forum. > > > > > >It seems to me to be a programming glitch, and > > therefore something for QXCI > > >to handle. However, if anyone has any insight, I > > would be pleased to hear > > >from you. > > > > > >All the best > > > > > >Maxwell Fraval > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >............................................ > > > > > >