Final Consensus on SuperSystem2

[KenProspero]

There are many different reviews/threads on SuperSystem2. I thought it might be a useful idea for a poll to summarize what people think.

[Moneyline]

Probably the best material available on 08 and Triple Draw. I've heard a lot of criticism of the book, but each individual's opinion of the book probably has a lot to do with the games that person is trying to learn.

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I've already posted my opinions as the chapters I read, noting what I believe to be the shortcomings of the PLO chapter especially, I think Mason's previous comment summed it up about SS2 - that although SS might have been groudbreaking in it's day, it is unrealistic to expect expert level advice in a chapter of 60 pages versus the 300 or so pages in other texts available today that concentrate on a single game. Only the triple draw chapter adds anything new to the body of poker literature.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bluff:

That's the way I see it.

Eventually I'll have more to say about SS2. I don't consider it a bad book, but it's certainly not a great book. Also, they could have used a professional editor.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Moneyline:

I agree that the O8 chapter is very good. As for the triple draw, the information there also appears pretty good, but I'm not as sure about that game since I have never played it. But Negraneau needs an editor.

Best wishes,
Mason

[yeltzen]

I love irony.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

[Zygote]

"But Negraneau needs an editor."

What do you more specifically mean by this?

Thanks.

[yeltzen]

He's basically saying that Negreanu's section reads a lot like a 2+2 book.

[Zygote]

Still a bit confused... explain it to me like im a three year old.

[istewart]

lol @ 2+2 demanding an editor.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

lol @ 2+2 demanding an editor.

[/ QUOTE ]
huh? Why am i so stupid and can't figure out whats going on.

[yeltzen]

DICTIONARY.COM
Jesus.

He's saying that there are lots of typos and/or grammar errors. Which we find funny because 2+2 books are full of them.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Boris:

We use professional editors.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zygote:

Fair enough. Let me be specific. Here's a paragraph from page 486.

"If you had this hand out of position however, you should still check despite the powerful draw you have. Your opponent isn't going to fold here; he'll either raise or call. If he does raise you've now lost an extra bet and are probably an underdog to win the pot. This is an important concept to understand. When out of position, you need to think about minimizing your losses by avoiding marginal value bets. They have value when your opponent happens to miss, but when your opponent completes his draw, you give up way too much equity when he raises you."

Now here's my rewrite:

"If you had this hand out of position, you should still check despite your powerful draw. Your opponent isn't going to fold; he'll either raise or call. If he raises you will lose an extra bet and are probably an underdog. This is important. When out of position, you need to minimize your losses by avoiding marginal bets. They have value when your opponent happens to miss, but when he completes his draw, you give up too much when he raises."

By my count there are 101 words in the original prargraph. I eliminated 23 of them, changed 4, and changed tense once.

By the way, if you're interested in triple draw lowball, don't let the above stop you from reading this section.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Dead]

That is an excellent re-write. I, too, thought that the Negreanu triple draw chapter used too many extraneous words. I don't know why he chose to.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dead:

Thanks. Almost all non-professional writers who decide to write have the problem of using too many words. When I first had my early books edited (by Lynne Loomis) I was stunned by the number of words that she crossed out (among other things). This is what professional editors do: They tighten up the language. Over the years, by studying what the editors did, my writing improved. But I still need an editor.

Best wishes,
mason

[Beach-Whale]

Mason, your rewrite made the language more dead, dry, and less flowing. I fail to see this as an improvement.

Language isn't set in stone. You may prefer a deader, dryer style, but others may not. With so much to improve when it comes to language, information presentation, layout and design in 2+2 books, it's kind of amusing to see you criticize others in these areas.

[LA_Price]

i've only read the Pot limit Omaha and triple draw sections so far. PLO sections wasn't that good but the triple draw section has helped me immensely.

[Hulk Hogan]

Seeing Mason on here criticizing the language and grammar in another book is simply laughable.

[yeltzen]

From where? Community college?

[larrondo]

Mason--

Nice job. The poker author I'd most like to see edited is Roy Cooke. Although the content of his articles can be terrific, the awkwardness of the writing sometimes makes me insane. He over uses phrases like 'texture' (an idiom that is both superfluous and vague) to describe a game, a flop, or his hand, and sometimes all three in the same paragraph.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy Cooke.

[/ QUOTE ]


The first few sentences of everything he writes is like the proverbial car wreck -- you can't help but look, but you know you're going to be annoyed by something like:

C'mon in 'n' sit fer a spell, the missus just fixed up a big ol' pot of 'er five alarm chili so why don't you take a load off and hunker down with a heapin' bowl of this mouth-waterin' goodness.

Yet I look.

It's like Family Circus -- except harder to avoid.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[KenProspero]

When I logged on this morning, I realized I had hit the wrong button in the survey, so that people can't see the results without having voted.

This was a mistake on my part, since the survey results are probably most useful to those who haven't actually bought this book (and therefore have no basis to vote).

Sooooo, as long as this thread remains active, I'll post updates as to how the voting has gone for anyone who is interested.

Results after 60 Votes

Excellent -- 2
Very Good -- 13
Good -- 23
Fair -- 16
Poor -- 6

[yeltzen]

HOW DARE YOU POST THIS BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jakethebake]

This thread is ridiculous. The whole premise is just dumb. Consensus means nothing in terms of SS2. SS2 could be great for NLHE and suck for LHE, or vice versa. The same for any of the chapters. It also may be great for cash games, and suck for tournaments, or vice versa. So basically the answer is it depends. It depends on which author/chapter and what the reader was looking for.

[slickpoppa]

The author's name is Danny Niegro. Get with it guys.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is ridiculous. The whole premise is just dumb. Consensus means nothing in terms of SS2. SS2 could be great for NLHE and suck for LHE, or vice versa. The same for any of the chapters. It also may be great for cash games, and suck for tournaments, or vice versa. So basically the answer is it depends. It depends on which author/chapter and what the reader was looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or is could suck across the board.....

I will say this truthfully, I really enjoyed the section on Doyle's life.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dead:

Thanks. Almost all non-professional writers who decide to write have the problem of using too many words. When I first had my early books edited (by Lynne Loomis) I was stunned by the number of words that she crossed out (among other things). This is what professional editors do: They tighten up the language. Over the years, by studying what the editors did, my writing improved. But I still need an editor.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed your writing has improved. But I was curious regarding David. Did he finally learn how to type or does he have some sort of personal assistant?

~ Rick

[Brian Yarger]

Are you referring to Roy Cooke or Roy West? Your example is definitely Roy West.

[Beach-Whale]

Yeltzen, Yeltzen... Posting in all caps... You really could use an editor for your posts.

And I'm sure Mason could cut out a few of those exclamation marks.

Edit: Ooops... Had to fix a spelling error.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Barron:

I think you have Roy West confused with Roy Cooke.

best wishes,
mason

[BarronVangorToth]

Roy West talks about when he cooks and doesn't Roy Cooke live out West?

Same guy?

No.

Nothing to see here.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[KenProspero]

Excellent -- 3
Very Good -- 19
Good -- 35
Fair -- 23
Poor -- 6

The graph is almost looking like a bell curve here (though not enough data really).

[TransientR]

Daniel isn't a professional writer, so like many people he writes more like he speaks, i.e. extraneous words.

Frank

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
He's basically saying that Negreanu's section reads a lot like a 2+2 book.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be the one funny thing you ever posted.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, your rewrite made the language more dead, dry, and less flowing. I fail to see this as an improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was one major improvement in Mason's rewrite though, it uses less space. When you get ~60 pages to cover a game any extraneous word becomes a sin.

[Beach-Whale]

That's not how I remember it from school...

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not how I remember it from school...

[/ QUOTE ]

When your word count is severely limited information has got to be more important than flair. But this is a pretty tangential discussion.

And 2+2 complaining about the editing of other books is a bit like throwing grenades in glass houses.

[SharkBait]

Mason-

I love your books but you should fire your "professional" editors immediately. Or at least find some college kid to proofread your books before they are printed. You could probably find a number of people here who would do it for free.

Keep up the good work.

[Beavis68]

I would like to see some examples of what you guys are talking about SSH and HoH are extremely well written and interesting, SS2 was a chore to read.

[Beach-Whale]

I meant it as a joke, Rudy. At school you wanted to get away with filling your X pages with as little information as possible... Well, at least I did.

Kind of like the tabloid press.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant it as a joke, Rudy. At school you wanted to get away with filling your X pages with as little information as possible... Well, at least I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was one of those boring nerds who worked hard for good grades. Guess both parts still show, as I totally missed that joke. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see some examples of what you guys are talking about SSH and HoH are extremely well written and interesting, SS2 was a chore to read.

[/ QUOTE ]
SSH and HoH are both very well written, I agree.

But the earlier books are filled with typos and erros in grammar and punctuation. (SSH and HoH each have a few as well, but not an inordinate number.)

If you randomly select two pages from any of the Poker Essays books, for example, you'd be better than even money to find at least one error somewhere on those two pages. (If not an outright error, at least a few poor style choices of the sort Mason found in Daniel's writing.)

[yeltzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's basically saying that Negreanu's section reads a lot like a 2+2 book.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be the one funny thing you ever posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, the blind rat finds the cheese every once in a while.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi maurile:

That's true if you are able to find one of the original editions. But all the Poker Essays book were professionally edited many years ago and those problems don't exist today. By the way, when the original editing was done, Lynne Loomis did a great job of tightening up the language, which is exactly what you want a professional editor to do.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Let me be a little more accurate here.

Blackjack Essays, Poker Essays, and Gambling Theory and Other Topics were edited by Lynne Loomins. Poker Essays, Volume II was edited by Paula Cizmar, a professional editor from Los Angeles who also worked on the short lived Poker World magazine. Poker Essays, Volume III was edited in house with much work being done by Mat Sklansky.

The person who is doing this work for us now is Alan Schoonmaker. Books that Dr. Al has edited for us are Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Small Stakes Hold 'em, and Harrington on Hold 'em.

best wishes,
Mason

[Al Schoonmaker]

Let me add a bit here. Although I edited these books, I rarely commented on their content. The authors are all immeasurably stronger players than I am. All I did was suggest ways to express their thoughts more clearly.

No writer, not even a master such as Hemingway, should work without an editor. We all fall in love with our own words, and we need someone to improve them. Everything I submit for publication gets checked by at least two of my friends, and I have repeatedly been embarrassed by mistakes they have found. However, I’d much rather be briefly embarrassed than have my mistakes appear in print.

I must also admit that there are errors in my work even after being edited. That’s the reason that I welcome the comments I receive here, by email, and in person.

I am most definitely not criticizing Dan Negreanu, Jennifer Harmon, or any other Super/System II writer. They did their job. Somebody should have edited their prose so that it reads a lot better.

Regards,

Al

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[A] master such as Hemingway...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hemmingway was a flake who kept trying to write well instead of actually just writing well.

Sorry for the hijack. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TransientR]

I don't think 2+2 books have an inordinate amount of typos.

And while the writing may be more serviceable than graceful, these books are read for content, not style.

Frank

[Aceshigh7]

Jennifer Harmon's and Daniel Negreanu's chapters are much better written than any 2+2 material I have seen, and I have read pretty much all the available 2+2 books.

It seems that 2+2 authors consistently fail to give credit where credit's due when it comes to other authors' work. You guys are out to push your products and thats the number one goal. I just wish you wouldn't try to feign objectivity when critiquing other people's products.

[maryfield48]

LOL at the thought of this forum arriving at a final consensus on anything.

[KenProspero]

Excellent -- 4
Very Good -- 25
Good -- 58
Fair -- 33
Poor -- 6

[Pawtucket Pat]

A lot of you guys need to freakin' lighten up!! Who cares if you catch a couple grammatical errors or mispellings in a 250-300 page book? You see those in NY Times bestsellers frequently as well.

Mason is pointing out the importance of content and language, not trivial grammar mistakes that have no impact on what can be taken from the book. His correction of the SS2 passage makes it easier to understand, and that is very important when teaching anything, especially something as complex as poker. That is the point. Discrediting that by citing mistakes in 2+2 books is completely ridiculous.

Also, I am the only one that read the first page of HPFAP that says the authors are poker players and not grammar professors, and that they apologize for any grammatical mistakes?
I read that and said "so what?" I also have a math mind and frequently make similar mistakes, and this book will make me a lot of money.

Speaking of which, the amount of money that the 2+2 authors have made me through their books is pretty astounding, and I'll certainly excuse any grammar or other trivial mistakes that I find without a second thought.

If you care enough about this to take a shot at Mason or David, you are wound way too tight to be playing poker. I would think that a simple "thank you" is a lot more appropriate.

-HB

[Beach-Whale]

I'm not talking about typos and grammatical errors, I'm talking mostly about bad presentation of the information. Recent books, like SSHE, are much better, but they still are molded in the very boring and dry layout and language.

And when 2+2 are criticizing other works for their editing, why shouldn't I be allowed to point out that I find that amusing when their own editing sucks?

And I'm talking about language and presentation and layout and such things, not grammatical errors and typos.

I am aware that some people disagree with me. But I think a lot agrees also.

But the point is, if you were to play triple draw, I guess you wouldn't care about Daniel Negreanu's language either, even if you thought it was imperfect in some way, so I guess you should tell Mason to frigin' lighten up too.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Recent books, like SSHE, are much better, but they still are molded in the very boring and dry layout and language.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, Limit Holdem for Advanced Players, admits up front that it's written by players not writers. So, I don't see how one can complain there. (To be honest, I had expected the prose to be horrible with this disclaimer, it really wasn't bad at all).

I agree with you that SSHE is generally well written.

I find HOH to be incredibly well written and clear.

So, it's fair to say that the good folks at 2+2 recognized early that they needed editors (and admitted this), and that they've by and large been successful in addressing this problem. Constant improvement -- whether at the tables, or with the pen. How can you ask for more.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ken:

We have always had a small group of people who just seem to be jealous of our success. Why someone like our whale friend even comes here given how badly our stuff is supposedly written is another question.

As for Daniel, the fault definitely does not lie with him. He's an expert poker player, not a professional writer, and his section is clearly better written than many other writings that I have seen in the poker field. So the failure clearly lies with someone else for not having the English addressed.

Many years ago, when our books were only sold at a small number of locations and only purchased by very serious players, exactly how they were written was not a big issue. But as the years went by and the market began to expand, this changed. Today we have gone to great efforts to make sure that all our books are written as clearly and concisely as possible. We are in a technical field and are not writing novels, so they are certainly dry in spots. But that's the way they are suppose to be.

But on the other hand, you can't go through our books and cross out 20 to 25 percent of the words and improve the way it reads. When you can do that, well, an editor is badly needed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[betgo]

I don't believe SS2 wasn't edited. If it wasn't edited at all, it would be a lot worse; particularly since it was written by top poker players rather than poker players who were writers. It was not as heavily edited as your books.

Part of the charm of Brunson's section of SS1 is the self-published style, where the writing sounds the way Brunson talks. It definately does not appear heavily edited.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
We have always had a small group of people who just seem to be jealous of our success. Why someone like our whale friend even comes here given how badly our stuff is supposedly written is another question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are jumping to conclusions here. Do you see why?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi betgo:

The original SS was very well written. I never met Alan Glodberg, but he obviously did a wonderful job in putting that book together. (He's the G in B&G Publishing that originally put out the book.)

As for the editing in SS2, I stand by my comments. However, some of the sections are clearly much better written than others. This might be because the particular author was more skilled at writing, or it might be that the author had some editing done before his section was submitted.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they could have used a professional editor. Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

The proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black. Two Plus Two could use a professional editor. Did the Irony of your words not strike you like a lightning bolt?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
By my count there are 101 words in the original prargraph. I eliminated 23 of them, changed 4, and changed tense once.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are writing a post on editing a rival's book and you cannot even ensure it contains no typos. Physician Heal Thyself!

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about typos and grammatical errors, I'm talking mostly about bad presentation of the information. Recent books, like SSHE, are much better, but they still are molded in the very boring and dry layout and language.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. To be clear sometimes things have to be dry. If you want an exciting book, go read fiction. If you cant be excited about a book that systematically tells you how to win other peoples money then why are you here???

Greg

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have it both ways. To be clear sometimes things have to be dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can in fact write the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without being boring. Anyone who has spent a few years at the university knows that there is a wide gap in how well presented the same information can be.

I've had textbooks covering topics I burn for that make me fall asleep in two pages, and textbooks about utterly boring fields that I have read several times more than required for good grades.

[KenProspero]

Unless something changes dramatically, this is the final update for those who care, but who can't vote because they haven't looked at the book.

Excellent 6 4%
Very Good 30 20%
Good 66 44%
Fair 38 25%
Poor 7 4%

[driller]

In the first SS, Brunson states in his intro to Caro's section that he (Caro) was the only one to write his own stuff.

[yeltzen]

I think there's a blood clot somewhere in his brain that prevents him from seeing how ridiculous he sounds. Just open up a "For Advanced Players" book to page 9, then reread his replies, then do it again and see if it seems any less ridiculous.

Blar blar blar we're not professional writers blar blar blar you can buy lots of books with the money we make you blar blar blar now I'm going to criticize everyone else's writing and act like I'm not a hypocrite.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Blar blar blar we're not professional writers blar blar blar you can buy lots of books with the money we make you blar blar blar now I'm going to criticize everyone else's writing and act like I'm not a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Malmuth has seen the light sometime between the release of HEFAP and today, and now he is spreading the Gospel of good writing. You got to admit that the two latest 2+2 books are heads and shoulders above the earlier when it comes to style.

[yeltzen]

Neither of which have Malmuth as the primary writer.

[Mason Malmuth]

Boris:

That's just the point. Since we're not professional writers, we use editors.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

The original version of HPFAP was released in 1988. The first professionally editied version was released in 1994 (if my memory is accurate).

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi driller:

That's not the case in SS2. I also agree that the original SS is very well written.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Boris:

You miss the point which is that I use an editor, and given that we are now in a major national market, it is very important that this is done.

MM

[yeltzen]

Mkay, well you can dance around this all you want but, as I'm sure you well know, the only thing your books have ever been criticized for is language-related. So, I find it ironic that this is what you choose to criticize another book for.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe SS2 wasn't edited. If it wasn't edited at all, it would be a lot worse; particularly since it was written by top poker players rather than poker players who were writers. It was not as heavily edited as your books.

Part of the charm of Brunson's section of SS1 is the self-published style, where the writing sounds the way Brunson talks. It definately does not appear heavily edited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cardoza Publishing's editors are known to be hacks. My roommate (who has an English master's degree) was offered a job as an editor and fact checker there but turned it down because she knew the quality of their work was horrible at best. 2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?) and content. SS2 was the first origional work by Cardoza that is good enough to reside on my bookshelf, that statement in itself must be considered within the context of this thread, since Cardoza products are traditionally crap.

I think you guys are all confusing an editor's role. Editors primarily fix prose to read in a fluid manner. Mistakes still sneak through, and often require a second, third, and fourth re-read to catch them. Many editors don't focus on punctuation or spelling as much as they used to thanks to the help that MS Word (or in Mason's case Word Perfect) provides in automating that task, so this is an area of common errors within a small publishing company such as 2+2.

So in short I do not belive Mason is the pot calling the kettle black, I stand by Mason's opinion and statements within this thread, I feel they were fair and balanced. For those who question my athority on this matter, I work for a magazine that was an ASME award winner - the American Society of Magazine Editors, which in itself is quite ironic in itself since my posts here are usually riddled with spelling errors.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Cardoza Publishing's editors are known to be hacks. My roommate (who has an English master's degree) was offered a job as an editor and fact checker there but turned it down because she knew the quality of their work was horrible at best. 2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?) and content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this verifies my statement that SS2 was edited. It just wasn't edited well or well edited.

[Leavenfish]

I have started on HOH and find it enlightening not being a no limit player.

This past week at a Borders/Waldenbooks trade show I picked up a complimentary copy of SS2. Now, I haven't read it yet...but I did take a look at the NL section. How different from HOH! Never once did I hear Doyle mention manipulating the pot size to force your opposition into making bad calls. How can someone not do that and expect to have that section get a positive reception??

---Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Luv:

Thanks. This post is very accurate.

Even though we spend a grest deal of time and effort, and don't deliver a book to the printer unless we think it's perfect, it seems that some type-os always get through. We do however get (most of) these corrected by the second printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi betgo:

I don't believe so. I find it difficult to believe that the limit hold 'em section or the triple draw lowball section were even looked at.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi betgo:

I don't believe so. I find it difficult to believe that the limit hold 'em section or the triple draw lowball section were even looked at.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

I would assume they were looked at, but not by a competent editor. From my understanding (which may be wrong, I do not claim to have inside knowledge of Cardoza's business practices with the exception of their advertising department) the book was rushed to press to meet a deadline due to reader demand now that the Poker Boom is upon us; the inclusion of the NL chapter from SS with almost no revisions is evidence of my belief.

TT:

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Readibility is not a word but readability is. Well, you asked. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Readibility is not a word but readability is. Well, you asked. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did, and I am glad I got an answer.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Readibility is not a word but readability is. Well, you asked. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did, and I am glad I got an answer.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should have gotten an editor /images/graemlins/blush.gif