One last try...

Doc,
You still didn't answer the question I asked originally:

Does the 480 byte record file contain everything that is in the 240 byte
record file?

I understand that the short records contain everything you need except
the one "new" byte - you said so right up front.

In article <xbadnW04VsqCpmXd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
Colin Campbell  <cmcampb_at_adelphia.net> wrote:
>Doc,
>You still didn't answer the question I asked originally:
>
>Does the 480 byte record file contain everything that is in the 240 byte
>record file?

My apologies for not having been sufficiently specific.

No.

>
>I understand that the short records contain everything you need except
>the one "new" byte - you said so right up front.

... and right up front I said that this one new byte was 'all that I
needed'.  So... one is described as having 'everything I need but' and
another is described as having 'only one thing needed'.

Given that description there is no evidence to conclude that the second
file contains *anything* needed but the key to match to the first (as
stated, explicitly) and that one byte.

Permit me to ask, Mr Campbell: given that the description, clearly and
unambiguously, stated that the 480-byte record contained a single byte
which was 'all that I needed'... would you be so kind as to supply the
assertions, assumptions and chain of logic you employed in order to
generate the question 'Does the 480-byte record contain anything else you
need besides this byte?'

It might be *most* interesting to examine these... then again, I am, at
times, *most* easily interested.

DD