D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[jinjang]

...probably because he reminded me of a pet goose I once had, that lived on the lake behind my house, who liked to follow me around as I gardened.

I am sorry for the loss of your goose. I do love animals, but given a choice I would choose people over animals. I can not have any pet because they kept dying on me and their deaths made me feel that I was not a caring person.

I think at the end of the story the couple also are 'indifferent' to each other, don't you? Their icy attitudes echo those of the frozen world around them. The couple are also 'indifferent' to the narrator, as you pointed out. His presence in the end has hardly make any difference in their lives.

I guess you are right: they may become indifferent to each other, which is worse than a divorce. In my opinion, indifference is worse than hate.

In any marriage, an initial love eventually dies out and grows to be a different kind of love - mutual trust, reliability financially or dutifully, knowing each other thoroughly good and bad, being comfortable with each other - if they have enough common grounds to stay on. I grant that infidelity would break the mutual trust. When a person decides whether to stay with the marriage or break off from it after a partner's unfaithfulness, it would depend on how much they endured difficulties together along the way. In such cases, the person would usually choose not to commit adultery.

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

[Janine]

I am sorry for the lose of your goose. I do love animals, but given a choice I would choose people over animals. I can not have any pet because they kept dying on me and their deaths made me feel that I was not a caring person.

How did you know he died? He was attacked actually, by some dogs one morning; but prior to this, he got a bad eye infection and damage, which required surgery; now, picture this big white goose in my neighbor's arms in the front seat peering at the stick shift as I was piloting the vehicle; also, picture the look of wonder on the faces of the folks in the waiting room, and I answering them (holding my goose wrapped in a blanket, mind you) - "Yes, it is a goose!" He was a riot and a great pal and he is a very fond memory now. I know that feeling now of loss and after many a pet, we're not opting to have anymore.

I guess you are right: they may become indifferent to each other, which is worse than a divorce. In my opinion, indifference is worse than hate.

My opinion, too. I totally agree. Indifference is lack of any emotion; love and hate are both strong emotions.

In any marriage, an initial love eventually dies out and grows to be a different kind of love - mutual trust, reliability financially or dutifully, knowing each other thoroughly good and bad, being comfortable with each other - if they have enough common grounds to stay on. I grant that infidelity would break the mutual trust. When a person decides whether to stay with the marriage or break off from it after a partner's unfaithfulness, it would depend on how much they endured difficulties together along the way. In such cases, the person would usually choose not to commit adultery.

That is true and also, that some marriages have survived infidelity. Just look at Hillary and Bill; haha...just kidding...better not consider them. I still agree basically, with what you wrote above; infidelity would and does break trust. I don't take it lightly myself at all, but some rare individuals can forgive, I imagine. I probably would not be one of them, but I give them credit, since all people are not infalible and it would be a personal choice.

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

Very true. I will post the next part of the story, jinjang, so we can move on.

[Janine]

Ok, onto the next section of text:

As I passed the end of the upper house, I saw a young woman just coming out of the back door. I had spoken to her in the summer. She recognized me at once, and waved to me. She was carrying a pail, wearing a white apron that was longer than her preposterously short skirt, and she had on the cotton bonnet. I took off my hat to her and was going on. But she put down her pail and darted with a swift, furtive movement after me.

'Do you mind waiting a minute?' she said. 'I'll be out in a minute.'

She gave me a slight, odd smile, and ran back. Her face was long and sallow and her nose rather red. But her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.

I stood in the road, looking at the fluffy, dark-red young cattle that mooed and seemed to bark at me. They seemed happy, frisky cattle, a little impudent, and either determined to go back into the warm shed, or determined not to go back, I could not decide which.

Presently the woman came forward again, her head rather ducked. But she looked up at me and smiled, with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible.

'Sorry to keep you waiting,' she said. 'Shall we stand in this cart-shed--it will be more out of the wind.'

So we stood among the shafts of the open cart-shed that faced the road. Then she looked down at the ground, a little sideways, and I noticed a small black frown on her brows. She seemed to brood for a moment. Then she looked straight into my eyes, so that I blinked and wanted to turn my face aside. She was searching me for something and her look was too near. The frown was still on her keen, sallow brow.

'Can you speak French?' she asked me abruptly. 'More or less,' I replied. 'I was supposed to learn it at school,' she said. 'But I don't know a word.' She ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and a rolling of her black eyes.

'No good keeping your mind full of scraps,' I answered.

But she had turned aside her sallow, long face, and did not hear what I said. Suddenly again she looked at me. She was searching. And at the same time she smiled at me, and her eyes looked softly, darkly, with infinite trustful humility into mine. I was being cajoled.

'Would you mind reading a letter for me, in French,' she said, her face immediately black and bitter-looking. She glanced at me, frowning.

'Not at all,' I said. 'It's a letter to my husband,' she said, still scrutinizing.

I looked at her, and didn't quite realize. She looked too far into me, my wits were gone. She glanced round. Then she looked at me shrewdly. She drew a letter from her pocket, and handed it to me. It was addressed from France to Lance-Corporal Goyte, at Tible. I took out the letter and began to read it, as mere words. 'Mon cher Alfred'--it might have been a bit of a torn newspaper. So I followed the script: the trite phrases of a letter from a French-speaking girl to an English soldier. 'I think of you always, always. Do you think sometimes of me?' And then I vaguely realized that I was reading a man's private correspondence. And yet, how could one consider these trivial, facile French phrases private! Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love-letter--no newspaper more obvious.

[BienvenuJDC]

Let us slow down a bit...
I think that we ought to do a character study. Let us break down each character and ask some questions. We all have made some assumptions that will twist the story in some very different directions. I also want to point out that I agree with Janine concerning an argumentative discussion. I despise it when someone tries to push my buttons just to wind me up. I also do not find an overbearing negativity very enlightening. I like to read and discuss things in order to learn about life, perspective, and reality.

What do we know about the narrator?
How old is he? Is he himself married? What is his perspective of the girl, Mrs Goyte?

His Age
My impression of the narrator is that he is an older man, but not necessarily and OLD man. His first impression of the girl that day was that he thought her skirt was a preposterously short skirt. I concluded from this that he either has a strong set of morals for a young man, or he is past his 40s and experience has focused his eye. As the girl approached he was looking at the cattle and not at the girl's form.

His Status
It is not revealed as to his status, being married or not. We do know that he does not live alone. When he had rescued Joey, he refers to WE as taking care of Joey. He doesn't give any evidence that he has any interest in the girl, other than a neighborly acquaintance. It is my perspective that he has a certain level of compassion mixed with some wisdom. An individual who was completely indifferent, would have read the letter outright without any consideration to the consequential ramifications. A younger unmarried man probably would not have thought this through, but a man who had a committed relationship understands the ramifications of such matter that was found in the letter. (I'm not defending his choice, but merely pointing out the different perspective between young and older/experienced.)

Her Character
The matter of her skirt referenced in my discussion of His Age also should be considered concerning her character. We will ask the question, is she overly flirtatious? We might consider this question in order to see what kind of relationship there is between Alfred and Mrs. Goyte. (Not to excuse anyone of anything, but to reveal that we all need to take ownership of our faults.)

Mrs Goyt also is very quick to assume her husband's infidelity. This very well could be based on his past behavior, but it also could be based on her own past behavior. I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves. We have no indication that Mrs Goyte has been unfaithful, or even if she is flirtatious (only that it is the narrator's perspective that her skirt was too short that day...shorter than her apron).

That is all that I am going to write tonight...
I would like to implore that we try to refrain from making conclusions too far ahead. If you want to draw a conclusion, please have a well supported reason for it. And don't be too quick to make up your mind about things...otherwise, the discussion with a group becomes totally unproductive.

[BienvenuJDC]

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

I agree, and I think that the discussion jumped way too far ahead before considering and discussing much of the underlying circumstances. Assumptions can defeat our judgments.

[Dark Muse]

That is all that I am going to write tonight...
I would like to implore that we try to refrain from making conclusions too far ahead. If you want to draw a conclusion, please have a well supported reason for it. And don't be too quick to make up your mind about things...otherwise, the discussion with a group becomes totally unproductive.

I am intitiled to my opinions and have every right to express them.

Jinjang and I were just entertaining ourselves with a bit of a debate and everyone wants to jump on my case.

[Janine]

Let us slow down a bit...
I think that we ought to do a character study. Let us break down each character and ask some questions. We all have made some assumptions that will twist the story in some very different directions. I also want to point out that I agree with Janine concerning an argumentative discussion. I despise it when someone tries to push my buttons just to wind me up. I also do not find an overbearing negativity very enlightening. I like to read and discuss things in order to learn about life, perspective, and reality.

Good idea to look at our impressions of the characters. I was going to suggest this with the text I just posted; but you beat me to it, Bien. Let's focus and keep on track.

What do we know about the narrator?
How old is he? Is he himself married? What is his perspective of the girl, Mrs Goyte?

His Age
My impression of the narrator is that he is an older man, but not necessarily and OLD man. His first impression of the girl that day was that he thought her skirt was a preposterously short skirt. I concluded from this that he either has a strong set of morals for a young man, or he is past his 40s and experience has focused his eye. As the girl approached he was looking at the cattle and not at the girl's form.

My impression is that the narrator is Lawrence, the author (himself), since he lived in this area during this time and Lawrence always wrote in a personal way and about what he knew of. It's possible this incident may have actually happened or a couple like this lived near by; I can read his diary excepts or letters to see what they reveal. At this time, I believe Lawrence would have been in his late 20's, early 30's. I have read a lot of biographies on the author, so let me look that up to make sure. I don't get a sense of how old the girl would be exactly, except I think young, maybe early 20's. Lawrence was actually a bit of a prude at times; but he believed in fidelity and did have a strong sense of morals in a marriage; so, I think, by pointing out the woman's skirt was short, he is in fact, 'disapproving' of it; same time suggesting she is somewhat flirtious, as you suggested. Right, he was looking at the cattle and did not have that 'male wandering eye'.

His Status
It is not revealed as to his status, being married or not. We do know that he does not live alone. When he had rescued Joey, he refers to WE as taking care of Joey. He doesn't give any evidence that he has any interest in the girl, other than a neighborly acquaintance. It is my perspective that he has a certain level of compassion mixed with some wisdom. An individual who was completely indifferent, would have read the letter outright without any consideration to the consequential ramifications. A younger unmarried man probably would not have thought this through, but a man who had a committed relationship understands the ramifications of such matter that was found in the letter. (I'm not defending his choice, but merely pointing out the different perspective between young and older/experienced.)

No, but I think if the narrator is Lawrence, he was married to Frieda at this time; I had also picked up on the 'we' and just thought of the married couple, since they occuppied a residence in this remote part of England for a short period of this time while this story was being written. He definitely has compassion mixed with some wisdom and that fits the profile of Lawrence right there. Wise, he certainly was. Exactly, he was not indifferent, and he would have cared about hurting the young woman's feelings, wounding her. He knew how deeply the true facts would wound her and her marriage.

"a man who had a committed relationship understands the ramifications of such matter that was found in the letter."

I agree with this. He would have a finer sensitivity to the situation.

Her Character
The matter of her skirt referenced in my discussion of His Age also should be considered concerning her character. We will ask the question, is she overly flirtatious? We might consider this question in order to see what kind of relationship there is between Alfred and Mrs. Goyte. (Not to excuse anyone of anything, but to reveal that we all need to take ownership of our faults.)

Yes, the time period has to be considered. I think you have something here. She may not be so innocent herself.

"we all need to take ownership of our faults" good line; I agree with that notion. You are doing a good job thinking this out and reading between the lines as well; subtext is important.

Mrs Goyt also is very quick to assume her husband's infidelity. This very well could be based on his past behavior, but it also could be based on her own past behavior. I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves. We have no indication that Mrs Goyte has been unfaithful, or even if she is flirtatious (only that it is the narrator's perspective that her skirt was too short that day...shorter than her apron).

"we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves" - that is very true! I don't think Mrs. Goyte is any angel herself. If you notice Lawrence continually uses the word witch in some form or the other to describe her. We will get into that on closer observation later on. Lawrence often uses repetition to drive home an important fact or idea. I think this is highly symbolic in this story.

That is all that I am going to write tonight...
I would like to implore that we try to refrain from making conclusions too far ahead. If you want to draw a conclusion, please have a well supported reason for it. And don't be too quick to make up your mind about things...otherwise, the discussion with a group becomes totally unproductive.

Yes, good point; and often when we get into the meat of these discussions people even end up taking a different stance by the end; they start to see things they had not originally seen or imagined. Taking it slowly is so advantageous to learning just what point the author is trying to get across. It often takes on new perspectives, as we explore the story. That is the whole point of a discussion. We are here to learn something new, both about the story and the author. Hope all this makes sense; it is super late now and I am very tired out. Whew what a whirlwind, but it has been very stimulating. Good discussion so far! I am pleased.

[Dark Muse]

Mrs Goyt also is very quick to assume her husband's infidelity. This very well could be based on his past behavior, but it also could be based on her own past behavior. I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves. We have no indication that Mrs Goyte has been unfaithful, or even if she is flirtatious (only that it is the narrator's perspective that her skirt was too short that day...shorter than her apron).

Are you not yourself making an assumption about Maggie? There is really nothing in the story to suggest that she has been unfaithful to Alfred. Particularly considering that all the opinions we have of her are seen through the eyes of the narrator and with the fact that we know he lied about what was in the letter that does suggest he may be unreliable as a narrator for he has shown his ability within the story to misconstrue facts. He may have had his reasons for doing so, but if he would misinform Maggie about the contents of the letter, he might also misinform the reader about his observations regarding Maggie.

A lot of the imagery he uses to describe is also a bit subjective so it is open to his own interpretation of her. He says that she is witch-like and gives him an odd smile, but what does that mean really? That is simply how he sees it.

As far as her jumping to conclusions about the letter, I do not think she is completely unreasonable in the presumption even with him changing the facts. Who wouldn't think it odd that an unknown woman would write a letter to one's husband and seemingly know them so well.

"It's a love-letter, I know that," she said. "There's too many 'Alfreds'
in it."

She then says to him when she wants him to read the letter to her:

"He's been behind my back long enough.
If he never did no worse things behind my back than I do behind his, he
wouldn't have cause to grumble. You read me what it says."

This suggests that he does have a history of having acted against her in the past and she has reason to have been suspicious enough to take the letter and have it read to her.

[BienvenuJDC]

Are you not yourself making an assumption about Maggie?

True...I guess that we will have to make some assumptions, but it depends how far we have to jump to get to our assumptions. Also, we need to be consistent with our assumptions.

[Janine]

True...I guess that we will have to make some assumptions, but it depends how far we have to jump to get to our assumptions. Also, we need to be consistent with our assumptions.

Bien, now I see your hidden message in that post from last night 'SHiFT' - stretching it a bit since there is no actual i.

I think when there is a first person narrator in any story we are seeing the story from his perspective; that is only natural. We have the option of either believing him or not. That just goes with the territory of any first person narration.

A lot of the imagery he uses to describe is also a bit subjective so it is open to his own interpretation of her. He says that she is witch-like and gives him an odd smile, but what does that mean really? That is simply how he sees it.

Whenever there is subtle imagery, there is interpretation; often this is personal. That is why all stories are not the same to all people. That is why we all see something different in it. It is true, he said she looked 'witch-like'; but the mere fact, that Lawrence has repeated that phrase several times, throughout the story, makes it significant to the interpretion of the story (repetition in Lawrence work is characteristic; we should know that by now). This is a short story, so he would not just throw in insignificant phrases or observations, such as the length of the woman's shirt. There had to be a good reason to add that in; Lawrence did countless revisions and if that meant nothing to the meaning of the story, he would have extraced it. In 'Witch a la Mode' it was much the same idea of a 'witch'. I am not sure Lawrence is viewing 'witch-like' in an altogether negative way. He didn't do so, in his other story either. There was special signifance to the comparison and the term. The 'odd smile' could mean any of many things. Maybe, we will find out more as we go along.

As far as her jumping to conclusions about the letter, I do not think she is completely unreasonable in the presumption even with him changing the facts. Who wouldn't think it odd that an unknown woman would write a letter to one's husband and seemingly know them so well.

Well, I think she knows the score. She doesn't seem dumb, nor naive.

[jinjang]

I am now “unballasted” safely out of the self-created “gust of wind.” I will try to follow everyone’s pace. I tend to muddle things up by doing things quickly and this will teach me thoroughness I lack.

BienvenuJDC, all your questions are great and I will make closer observations.

I would choose your first conclusion: “he has a strong set of morals for a young man.”

The word “preposterously” indicates that he is prudent and that he did not approve of the short skirt, as Janine said, and he felt discomfort at Maggie’s smile which may be as innocent as an attempt to smooth the awkwardness of her situation that brought her to ask a mere acquaintance to read a private letter for her.

She must have been struggling over the letter. Her “grimace, saturnine, black and bitter-looking” may prove she was agonized over it for last two or three days.

“She was searching me for something and her look was too near.” If a person is judicious with high moral, would he not interpret Maggie’s too near searching look flirtatious? She may be wondering how the narrator would take the whole situation and whether she is doing the right thing.

Does old age bring wisdom? I have some hope, then.

The narrator may be astute and observant , though, young. My visceral feeling, though, is that he does not bear any animus toward Maggie or Alfred.

What does this quote mean?
"Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love letter - no newspaper more obvious." We may be in agony and in love, but, exposed as that in a letter to a stranger, the pain becomes comedy and dross to others.
Does my interpretation right to you?

[Janine]

Good post, jinjang; I love your first witty reference
"I am now “unballasted” safely out of the self-created “gust of wind.” ....good one. Actually, we haven't any set pace, jinjang; we make it up as we go along. I agree with all the observations you layed out in your post. I get the same impressions and your last line with the quote was appropriate in my own oppinion. Yes, I think your interpretation is much the same as mine when I reached the ending of the story.

I am rather tired tonight and it's quite hot here (was 90F today! Wowy!). I will be going to bed soon. I want to look at a movie on a portable DVD player, I bought not long ago, cozy in the bedroom. See you all tomorrow; have fun if you keep discussing this part of the story. I will catch up and soon will post more text to discuss; probably tomorrow.

[BienvenuJDC]

S

• her preposterously short skirt (already mentioned in previous post)

• a slight, odd smile

• her gloomy black eyes softened caressively(what is this look conveying)

• happy, frisky cattle, a little impudent(I can see cattle being happy, and maybe frisky, but impudent {meaning – lacking modesty})? I think that DHL is really implying this description to be for something/someone else)

• with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible.(like Janine said, witch-like is a repetitive description, the narrator said that he spoke to her last summer...not a common typical friend, but she looks at him with immediate intimacy? I think that she is a bit forward. There are several items that indicate to me a flirtatious attitude.)

• a small black frown on her brows

• She glanced at me, frowning.

H

• She ducked her head and laughed...with a slightly ugly grimace and a rolling of her black eyes. (she has some sort of attitude that the narrator is indicating)

• did not hear what I said. (I think that she is focused on her predetermined conclusion)

• she said, her face immediately black and bitter-looking

i
F

• which makes a man lord of the earth

• either determined to go back into the warm shed, or determined not to go back, I could not decide which

T
I didn't find any for taste
S
I didn't find any for smell

It is late...here a breakdown to consider for discussion...which I will do tomorrow...

[Emmy Castrol]

Hey all, I'm back from Tasmania now where I had my own DH Lawrence experience. I read the Wintry Peacock once before I left and just reread it again then. I'm sorry to have missed out on the discussion so far and have just finished getting up to date on the thread.

I have to say that there isn't a single DH Lawrence short story I dislike, although, like Dark Muse, I don't find any of the characters particularly likeable. I agree with Janine that the narrator sounds like it was based on Lawrence himself (trying to soften up a love letter sounds just like the irritating thing Paul in 'Sons and Lovers' would do!).

I was a bit uncertain about the opening paragraph and what kind of symbolism the peacocks suggested. I like what Janine said about how at the end, Maggie and Alfred were as indifferent to the narrator as the peacocks in the beginning. That makes sense to me. I have to admit that I am a bit prejudiced against peacocks (I have a fear of birds).

What I do like about DH Lawrence and his short stories is how he gets into the conflict of a situation almost immediately, true to short story form. The conflict here, as everyone is aware, is that the narrator has been confronted with the request to read a personal letter. The conflict arises because the person making the request, Maggie, has come across a personal letter to her husband, from a french speaking girl whom not only did her husband have an affair with but - from the letter - also a child with. The narrator is very quickly thrown into conflict and this is what interested me about the story.

I sympathised very quickly with Maggie, although something stopped me from finding her likeable. Did anyone else feel this? I first felt this sympathy with Lawrence's words 'preposterously short skirt'. I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right. My sympathy was furthered with 'she ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and rolling of her black eyes'. I felt that Maggie's character is making sure to laugh at herself before he can. DH Lawrence is setting the sympathy of the narrator for Maggie. His decision to soften the love letter is out of pity for Maggie (I disliked this about the narrator's character and yet, because of his indifference, I could also understand why he would do it).

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hey all, I'm back from Tasmania now where I had my own DH Lawrence experience.

Welcome back!

(trying to soften up a love letter sounds just like the irritating thing Paul in 'Sons and Lovers' would do!).

I still can't see why the narrator's choice to 'soften' the letter should be so irritating. I guess I don't see the benefit in people knowing everything. Journalist these days have this catch phrase that people have the 'right to know'. I ask, 'Do they?' There are many things that people DO need to know, but sometimes 'ignorance is bliss'. I was going to hold back to comment on this to later in the short story, but since it has come up by several others, I ask myself what positive outcome can there be by Maggie knowing of Alfred's unfaithfulness. I believe that she would have the right to divorce him (no doubt there, even in the strictest of religious interpretation), but considering the times and current economic situation of Europe is it prudent for Maggie to leave. No indication is given that she has the option to live in her parents care. A young girl would have many undesirable challenges on her own in the circumstances of this society. Finally, to live with the Goytes as the wife/daughter-in-law knowing that she is in an unfaithful marriage will not improve the relationship and living conditions.
Just my thoughts...Alfred's still a quite undesirable jerk, but I'll save that for later (I don't want you to think that I sympathize with him, nor do I think that the narrator sympathizes with him...I don't even think his parents sympathize with him.)

What I do like about DH Lawrence and his short stories is how he gets into the conflict of a situation almost immediately, true to short story form.

No doubt...the narrator is thrust into this conflict. He makes a quick choice to handle it...in hind sight, Did he do the best thing? I don't know!

I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right.

I can be very agreeable to this observation.

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

These are some excellent points. It is hard to get a good take on Maggie's attractiveness because the narrator doesn't show interest in her based on his 'prudeness' (made-up word)...but it gives no indication whether she would have been appealing...or UNappealing. I've personally known of women choosing an undesirable man as a mate, thinking that there is no possible way that 'HE would cheat on ME.' The concept of marrying 'beneath' oneself to ensure faithfulness (these are the words of one who has done this whom I know). The concept is a flawed concept, it does not work in most cases. But I'd have to agree with your observations...and they are observations that I had not considered before.

But that is all I can give for now...I'm off here until later!!