Builder said:
OK GEORGE, How do you know the answer is "NO"? Can you prove no such data exists?
Because MikeinPA (Super Member) said so
twice. And he is the ONLY one to actually answer your question. What more do you want?
Do you think so highly of yourself that you speak for the other 40,000 members on this website?
I think plenty highly of myself, but do not presume to speak for 40,000 members. And I have not done so. You asked a question. What you got was lot of noise and one firm answer.
No.
I happen to think these facts might be published somewhere and it's my perogative to find out the answer.
It appears, so far, that you are wrong about that. And so far there have been 40 some odd posts in this thread from maybe 10-15 different members. At that rate (doing a little top-of-the head math) you could possibly get 160,000 replies before the 40,000th member finally got you what you were looking for..........all because you wouldn't refine your question a little and got belligerent when some folks suggest that it might HELP YOU get your answer. Don't you get that?
I suspect you do get it, but from what I'm hearing from other folks, being in the middle of 160,000 irrelevant posts seems to be right up your ally. This is my first time I've encountered you here at TBn so I wouldn't know.
I asked a simple question, like a gentleman I might add.
A question can be 'simple'
and ineffective. Yours is the perfect example.
You don't know the answer.
Now how on earth do you know that? I might be the 40,000th member that does actually have the answer you are looking for and all you've done is ticked me off.

Seriously though. I do know the answer. Mike got it right. Its no. It may not be what you were looking for, but its what you got.
I have been offered some answers that are useful by helpful members.
Show them to me. Quote them. Which ones? The only helpful answer that you got was from Mike. No. All the others were speculative and most of them do not follow your criteria for an answer to your 'simple' question.
Yours have been nothing but confrontational and uninformative and useless because you don't even know if the answer exists.
Again, show me. My first post was #26. Go back, read it again. There is nothing confrontational about it. Things did not get confrontational here until
you attacked
me over a response that was intended to help you. How's that for irony? Want more? I was right. The only reason my response to you was useless was that you were too defensive to take my advice.
Maybe if you'd go away, we can get back to my original question.
Not gonna happen. Since you have rejected Mike's answer, and you're so all fired smart, I'm going to hang around and see how many posts it takes for you to realize he was right!
