What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the
class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? Thanks, Jacopo |
That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time ago,
and got a nothing as a response. Very frustrating. I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset, Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away. That way we're in compliance with the book. An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to put a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the type, you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just looking at doesn't go any further. It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it. On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the > class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? > > In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my > guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same > that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? > > Thanks, > > Jacopo > -- James A Barrows |
Jim,
we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to help: if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and write it. You know what? After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of people's complaints... Jacopo Jim Barrows wrote: > That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time ago, > and got a nothing as a response. > > Very frustrating. > > I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset, > Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away. > That way we're in compliance with the book. > > An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of > accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, > > We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to put > a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the type, > you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple > accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit > to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just looking > at doesn't go any further. > > It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it. > > On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the >> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? >> >> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my >> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same >> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jacopo >> > > > |
I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of
an answer. And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption was my assumption. I also don't consider the comment "Very Frustrating" to be a complaint. It's a statement of fact. The rest was just an idea to be kicked around. However, after further looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do. We use both. I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use either class or type to determine which account a transaction should go into if no account is provided. A couple of other places where we use that extra information to do the same type of thing. I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a confirmation of the assumption. No documentation is better then bad documentation. On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > Jim, > > we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to help: > if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and write it. > > You know what? > After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of > people's complaints... > > Jacopo > > > Jim Barrows wrote: > > That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time ago, > > and got a nothing as a response. > > > > Very frustrating. > > > > I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset, > > Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away. > > That way we're in compliance with the book. > > > > An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of > > accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, > > > > We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to put > > a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the type, > > you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple > > accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit > > to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just looking > > at doesn't go any further. > > > > It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it. > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the > >> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? > >> > >> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my > >> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same > >> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jacopo > >> > > > > > > > > -- James A Barrows |
A complaint is a complaint, and doesn't usually get you very far in a collaborative environment. Complaining in any form basically says that someone else created a problem and that person should solve it... so whoever that is: get on it already! You're either helping to create the software or you're not. If you are, then any complaint you have is technically a complaint against a group that includes yourself, and hence doesn't make much sense... That may bring you around to wanting to make changes to this, which brings you to contribution guidelines and good ways of working with other people and an existing code base (whether it be open source or not...). The main one I'm thinking of is the Rule #2: read before you write, ie understand something before you desire to change it (which I guess is what you're getting at with your first question). There are other interesting and helpful points here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices I think that's what Jacopo is referring to. As for this question, I don't remember it ever being asked (perhaps it was another related question though, phrased differently or something?). Of course, there are hundreds of questions every week going through the mailing lists and NO paid support staff (just people in their "spare" time helping out), so such questions are sometimes either lost or not considered as a high a priority as other active issues and questions that could use attention... and there are ALWAYS more issues and questions than one has time to work through completely. ================================== In any case, the difference between a GlAccount class and type is that they are independent, ie like two dimensions on a graph. Some combinations of them don't make sense and they are certainly meant to be used together. The best way to understand them, as with many such entities that are concerned with types of records that require different code behavior, is to look at the seed data for the entity(ies). In this case that file is AccountingTypeData.xml. If you have looked at that and it doesn't make sense then maybe the best next step is to write a more detailed question to say what makes sense and what seems to conflict, and then maybe someone can be more helpful, instead of just guessing about what you're trying to find. At a high level you can see the different top-level classes and types, ie the ones with no parentClassId or parentTypeId. That is more helpful for the class as the classes are used in the posting routines to determine how an account should be treated (ie whether it is a debit or credit account, mainly). One thing that might make understanding these more difficult is misunderstanding their intent, and that seems to be the case with your comment about deciding how to determine an account to post to. The types and classes are NOT meant for that, there are other entities for that depending on where the information is coming from. For example when posting an accounting transaction based on an invoice you would look up the GlAccounts to use based on the internal organization the invoice is related to, and the InvoiceItemType for each item, and for some items like those for selling a product you would also try to use the productId to look up the glAccountId to use. If you browse around these entities you'll see a bunch of defined relationships between them for this purpose. -David On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Jim Barrows wrote: > I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of > an answer. > And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption > was my assumption. I also don't consider the comment "Very > Frustrating" to be a complaint. It's a statement of fact. > > The rest was just an idea to be kicked around. However, after further > looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do. We use > both. I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use > either class or type to determine which account a transaction should > go into if no account is provided. A couple of other places where we > use that extra information to do the same type of thing. > > I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a > confirmation of the assumption. No documentation is better then bad > documentation. > > On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Jim, >> >> we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to >> help: >> if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and >> write it. >> >> You know what? >> After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of >> people's complaints... >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> Jim Barrows wrote: >>> That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time >>> ago, >>> and got a nothing as a response. >>> >>> Very frustrating. >>> >>> I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, >>> Asset, >>> Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away. >>> That way we're in compliance with the book. >>> >>> An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of >>> accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, >>> >>> We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to >>> put >>> a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the >>> type, >>> you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple >>> accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit >>> to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just >>> looking >>> at doesn't go any further. >>> >>> It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on >>> it. >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and >>>> the >>>> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? >>>> >>>> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes >>>> but my >>>> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the >>>> same >>>> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > James A Barrows smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment |
David and Jacopo,
You both never fail to amaze me with the time and care taken to craft your answers to OfBizian's questions - and even their inane rants (complaints? - hehe). I can't thank you enough and wanted to wish you guys and the rest of the list a very joyous Holiday Season and a Happy New Year! All the best, -Yousef Shemisa -----Original Message----- From: David E Jones [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 13:07 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Difference between GL account type and class A complaint is a complaint, and doesn't usually get you very far in a collaborative environment. Complaining in any form basically says that someone else created a problem and that person should solve it... so whoever that is: get on it already! You're either helping to create the software or you're not. If you are, then any complaint you have is technically a complaint against a group that includes yourself, and hence doesn't make much sense... That may bring you around to wanting to make changes to this, which brings you to contribution guidelines and good ways of working with other people and an existing code base (whether it be open source or not...). The main one I'm thinking of is the Rule #2: read before you write, ie understand something before you desire to change it (which I guess is what you're getting at with your first question). There are other interesting and helpful points here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices I think that's what Jacopo is referring to. As for this question, I don't remember it ever being asked (perhaps it was another related question though, phrased differently or something?). Of course, there are hundreds of questions every week going through the mailing lists and NO paid support staff (just people in their "spare" time helping out), so such questions are sometimes either lost or not considered as a high a priority as other active issues and questions that could use attention... and there are ALWAYS more issues and questions than one has time to work through completely. ================================== In any case, the difference between a GlAccount class and type is that they are independent, ie like two dimensions on a graph. Some combinations of them don't make sense and they are certainly meant to be used together. The best way to understand them, as with many such entities that are concerned with types of records that require different code behavior, is to look at the seed data for the entity(ies). In this case that file is AccountingTypeData.xml. If you have looked at that and it doesn't make sense then maybe the best next step is to write a more detailed question to say what makes sense and what seems to conflict, and then maybe someone can be more helpful, instead of just guessing about what you're trying to find. At a high level you can see the different top-level classes and types, ie the ones with no parentClassId or parentTypeId. That is more helpful for the class as the classes are used in the posting routines to determine how an account should be treated (ie whether it is a debit or credit account, mainly). One thing that might make understanding these more difficult is misunderstanding their intent, and that seems to be the case with your comment about deciding how to determine an account to post to. The types and classes are NOT meant for that, there are other entities for that depending on where the information is coming from. For example when posting an accounting transaction based on an invoice you would look up the GlAccounts to use based on the internal organization the invoice is related to, and the InvoiceItemType for each item, and for some items like those for selling a product you would also try to use the productId to look up the glAccountId to use. If you browse around these entities you'll see a bunch of defined relationships between them for this purpose. -David On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Jim Barrows wrote: > I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of > an answer. > And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption > was my assumption. I also don't consider the comment "Very > Frustrating" to be a complaint. It's a statement of fact. > > The rest was just an idea to be kicked around. However, after further > looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do. We use > both. I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use > either class or type to determine which account a transaction should > go into if no account is provided. A couple of other places where we > use that extra information to do the same type of thing. > > I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a > confirmation of the assumption. No documentation is better then bad > documentation. > > On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Jim, >> >> we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to >> help: >> if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and >> write it. >> >> You know what? >> After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of >> people's complaints... >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> Jim Barrows wrote: >>> That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time >>> ago, and got a nothing as a response. >>> >>> Very frustrating. >>> >>> I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, >>> Asset, Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown >>> away. >>> That way we're in compliance with the book. >>> >>> An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of >>> accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, >>> >>> We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to >>> put a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the >>> type, you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple >>> accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit >>> to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just >>> looking at doesn't go any further. >>> >>> It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on >>> it. >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and >>>> the class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? >>>> >>>> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but >>>> my guess is that the information that we store in the class is the >>>> same that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > James A Barrows begin 666 smime.p7s M,( &"2J&2(;W#0$'`J" ,( "`0$Q"S )!@4K#@,"&@4`,( &"2J&2(;W#0$' M`0``H((/:3""!#(P@@,:H ,"`0("`0$P#08)*H9(AO<-`0$%!0`P>S$+, D& M`U4$!A,"1T(Q&S 9!@-5! @,$D=R96%T97(@36%N8VAE<W1E<C$0, X&`U4$ M!PP'4V%L9F]R9#$:,!@&`U4$"@P10V]M;V1O($-!($QI;6ET960Q(3 ?!@-5 M! ,,&$%!02!#97)T:69I8V%T92!397)V:6-E<S >%PTP-# Q,#$P,# P,#!: M%PTR.#$R,S$R,S4Y-3E:,'LQ"S )!@-5! 83`D=",1LP&08#500(#!)'<F5A M=&5R($UA;F-H97-T97(Q$# .!@-5! <,!U-A;&9O<F0Q&C 8!@-5! H,$4-O M;6]D;R!#02!,:6UI=&5D,2$P'P8#500##!A!04$@0V5R=&EF:6-A=&4@4V5R M=FEC97,P@@$B, T&"2J&2(;W#0$!`04``X(!#P`P@@$*`H(!`0"^0)WT;N'J M=H<<345$CKY&R(,&G<$J_A@?CN0"^O.K75"*%C$+F@;0Q7 BS4DM5&/,MFYH M1@M3ZLM,),"\<D[J\16N]%2:$@K#>K(S8.+:B57S(ECSWMS/[X.&HHR43Y]H M\IB01H0GQW:_X\PU+(M>!V1E@L!(L*B1^6&?=B!0J)''9K7K>&(#5O"*&A/J M,:,>H)G]./;V)S)8;P?U:[C[%"NOMZK,UF-?<XS:!9FH.*C+%W@V4:SIGO1X M.HW/#]E"XI@,JR^?#@'>[Y^92?$MWZQT31N8M4?%Y2G1^9 8QV*<OH/')GL^ MBB7'P-V=YC5H$""=C]C>TL.$G U>Z"_)`@,!``&C@< P@;TP'08#51T.!!8$ M%* 1"B,^EO$'[.*O*>^"I7_0,*2T, X&`U4=#P$!_P0$`P(!!C /!@-5'1,! M`?\$!3 #`0'_,'L&`U4='P1T,'(P.* VH#2&,FAT=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O M8V$N8V]M+T%!04-E<G1I9FEC871E4V5R=FEC97,N8W)L,#:@-* RAC!H='1P M.B\O8W)L+F-O;6]D;RYN970O04%!0V5R=&EF:6-A=&5397)V:6-E<RYC<FPP M#08)*H9(AO<-`0$%!0`#@@$!``A6_ +PF^C_I/K6>\9$@,Y/Q,7V`%C,IK:\ M%$EH!';HYNY=[ (/8-:-4!A/)DX!X^:PI>Z_O'140;_]_!*XQT]:](E@!7]@ MMP5*\_;QPK_$N72&MBU]:\S2\T;=+\;@:L/#- ,L?9;=6L(.IPJ9P06+JPPO M\UPZSVPW50F'WE- ;%CO_+:K96X$]AO</.!:%<:>V?%92# A90-L[.DA<^R; M`Z'@-ZV@%1B/^KH"SJ<LJ1 3+-3E"":K(I=@^)!>=-2BFE.]\JEHX*)NPM=L ML:,/GK_K:.=6\J[RXRLX.@F!M6N%U[XM[3\:M[)CXO5B+(+4:@!!4/$Y@Y^5 MZ3:6F&XP@@3=,((#Q: #`@$"`A!QDOOF&5^L31*%='$THABG, T&"2J&2(;W M#0$!!04`,'LQ"S )!@-5! 83`D=",1LP&08#500(#!)'<F5A=&5R($UA;F-H M97-T97(Q$# .!@-5! <,!U-A;&9O<F0Q&C 8!@-5! H,$4-O;6]D;R!#02!, M:6UI=&5D,2$P'P8#500##!A!04$@0V5R=&EF:6-A=&4@4V5R=FEC97,P'A<- M,#0P,3 Q,# P,# P6A<-,C@Q,C,Q,C,U.34Y6C"!KC$+, D&`U4$!A,"55,Q M"S )!@-5! @3`E54,1<P%08#500'$PY386QT($QA:V4@0VET>3$>,!P&`U4$ M"A,55&AE(%5315)44E535"!.971W;W)K,2$P'P8#500+$QAH='1P.B\O=W=W M+G5S97)T<G5S="YC;VTQ-C T!@-5! ,3+5543BU54T521FER<W0M0VQI96YT M($%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N(&%N9"!%;6%I;#""`2(P#08)*H9(AO<-`0$!!0`# M@@$/`#""`0H"@@$!`+(YA:3R?:M!.V)&-Z[-P6!UO#EE^4H:1Z*YS$C,:IC5 M3349N:1"Y<Y)XHHO'GS2,0?'3K2#9)TN*=6B9,2%O851-7FD3FB0>QQZI)*H M%_*8%?*3S,FD,I6[#$\PO9B@"XOE;ANB1OIXO*)OJUE>I2_/RMIMJB_KK*&S M:JJW+F<UBWGA'FF(XN9&S:"EZKX+SG8Z>@Z;ZOS:)UL]<Q\BYDAAQDSS:;&H M+ANVU#$@++R"BHZD#J77B4/\%EJO'7'7$5G:NH<-K_KSX<+PI,5GC-;65#K> M"J2Z`W>S9<C]'M-T8JH8RFB3'J&%?O5'9<OX35<H=-(T_S"V[O9B,!2,+.L" M`P$``:."`2<P@@$C,!\&`U4=(P08,!: %* 1"B,^EO$'[.*O*>^"I7_0,*2T M,!T&`U4=#@06!!2)@F=]Q)TF< !+M%!(?-X]K@1N?3 .!@-5'0\!`?\$! ," M`08P#P8#51T3`0'_! 4P`P$!_S =!@-5'24$%C 4!@@K!@$%!0<#`@8(*P8! M!04'`P0P$08#51T@! HP"# &!@15'2 `,'L&`U4='P1T,'(P.* VH#2&,FAT M=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O8V$N8V]M+T%!04-E<G1I9FEC871E4V5R=FEC97,N M8W)L,#:@-* RAC!H='1P.B\O8W)L+F-O;6]D;RYN970O04%!0V5R=&EF:6-A M=&5397)V:6-E<RYC<FPP$08)8(9(`8;X0@$!! 0#`@$&, T&"2J&2(;W#0$! M!04``X(!`0"=E<L\N'ZE"<0>OPO"QW:..3R4QA"J3PS)X*N$78E4X&4[\VT< M?#<L)51?EB'\-X21G17<%$^!SU0=:VQ%8,<M^9=13/EFRCR@@HRFR/#BZ=1* M^>P_5LG==HS#@@%/; #S'AIA= 1'`ZG&0%>1O&4BQ2=G3U?;9%K9C1^ZAB_T M!JZ<:>WI],\I%]C@2I\:("^73%&[1@?$BC=.(.,),6C'GL2+G>A^$;PR:!"6 M$9A$V"I18$V(ZW0ZWT,&,L@Y5HPZ$5+30:1#`_3M[S,GVSG@%$XFR=CU.>*) MN)-=MRDF0>JSFZZ#_'=URNC*M?[B94IC/D3$T,->AW.IF!RO?Q5_,((&3C"" M!3:@`P(!`@(0>*LDUO"(\J/*]+9"38<"4S -!@DJADB&]PT!`04%`#"!KC$+ M, D&`U4$!A,"55,Q"S )!@-5! @3`E54,1<P%08#500'$PY386QT($QA:V4@ M0VET>3$>,!P&`U4$"A,55&AE(%5315)44E535"!.971W;W)K,2$P'P8#500+ M$QAH='1P.B\O=W=W+G5S97)T<G5S="YC;VTQ-C T!@-5! ,3+5543BU54T52 M1FER<W0M0VQI96YT($%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N(&%N9"!%;6%I;# >%PTP-S$P M,3 P,# P,#!:%PTP.#$P,#DR,S4Y-3E:,('E,34P,P8#500+$RQ#;VUO9&\@ M5')U<W0@3F5T=V]R:R M(%!%4E-/3D$@3D]4(%9!3$E$051%1#%&,$0&`U4$ M"Q,]5&5R;7,@86YD($-O;F1I=&EO;G,@;V8@=7-E.B!H='1P.B\O=W=W+F-O M;6]D;RYN970O<F5P;W-I=&]R>3$?,!T&`U4$"Q,6*&,I,C P,R!#;VUO9&\@ M3&EM:71E9#$7,!4&`U4$`Q,.66]U<V5F(%-H96UI<V$Q*C H!@DJADB&]PT! M"0$6&WES:&5M:7-A0&%C8W5R871E86QW87ES+F-O;3""`2(P#08)*H9(AO<- M`0$!!0`#@@$/`#""`0H"@@$!`/=CHQO$L"3W0B-4-8.CKU&X>P1V]#I\'YC+ MGOHT6\^(S%&B-R H(1 K9XV'I9MB392DSFXO^OW\A2!P/R,J!6&8C/!"!%$& M/2MT1\830A8?JXIDM#)Z?22:O)]6"L8'%'-6?A8A^3*F:SMF%.8E.TGRH!9K M(_P'E6RW+K$_/NEZ0[\@=4\W7MHM?EMS>Z^0T_APN#S])5;%`49LPUKK[Z:* M8L6.4HD/[<###2Q<Y_1%V0QFK S>L7W@V>?LIFBP8>AK`IV?>R 84U,S9PO: M!;YT/M>*UVC=?:9E4^T'1>@ZO5@MIM"0#Q=^VBEASGAG"?CH$!S+SB'U8T]W M>S4\Z2$"`P$``:."`BTP@@(I,!\&`U4=(P08,!: %(F"9WW$G29P`$NT4$A\ MWCVN!&Y],!T&`U4=#@06!!0]Z91V0GE/?DY]5DV;9BY3,# W!C .!@-5'0\! M`?\$! ,"!: P# 8#51T3`0'_! (P`# @!@-5'24$&3 7!@@K!@$%!0<#! 8+ M*P8!! &R,0$#!0(P$08)8(9(`8;X0@$!! 0#`@4@,$8&`U4=( 0_,#TP.P8, M*P8!! &R,0$"`0$!,"LP*08(*P8!!04'`@$6'6AT='!S.B\O<V5C=7)E+F-O M;6]D;RYN970O0U!3,(&E!@-5'1\$@9TP@9HP3*!*H$B&1FAT=' Z+R]C<FPN M8V]M;V1O8V$N8V]M+U543BU54T521FER<W0M0VQI96YT075T:&5N=&EC871I M;VYA;F1%;6%I;"YC<FPP2J!(H$:&1&AT=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O+FYE="]5 M5$XM55-%4D9I<G-T+4-L:65N=$%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N86YD16UA:6PN8W)L M,'P&""L&`04%!P$!!' P;C V!@@K!@$%!0<P`H8J:'1T<#HO+V-R="YC;VUO M9&]C82YC;VTO551.04%!0VQI96YT0T$N8W)T,#0&""L&`04%!S "ABAH='1P M.B\O8W)T+F-O;6]D;RYN970O551.04%!0VQI96YT0T$N8W)T,"8&`U4=$00? M,!V!&WES:&5M:7-A0&%C8W5R871E86QW87ES+F-O;3 -!@DJADB&]PT!`04% M``."`0$`3? 1T&PG+%5IK60<59@CB=%30T3_;NRA<@6;=H0ODC]M:^_M,_A5 M5!!>U173CXA9@Y*OPR$@>?H.F]11I7F0GZPK:%^3D%2[O,$@$&,-G&L'TC\, M$2ZCURBP"V N=_C /6#3M<X2*TL+9:-FQH5E*,+&]O)5-S!B$Y/B+T,KS9+# MT^U)"NW)AT6)DM.FEIT^DAL%F7[,O/QJSOL[-C/003R^2"5)HW:E[=L2["@8 M6+TH&TR$4.+X>L)/?6_74<*#%QSO\J?QC4DMXJ4\6D]&&*+U$-U99Y+OP3#1 M#Q(4A@HQA[1!4G(FPZP.< Z=E@P&Z4"D5I;T6=13L]T(DQJ6^S&"!&4P@@1A M`@$!,('#,(&N,0LP"08#500&$P)54S$+, D&`U4$"!,"550Q%S 5!@-5! <3 M#E-A;'0@3&%K92!#:71Y,1XP' 8#500*$Q54:&4@55-%4E1255-4($YE='=O M<FLQ(3 ?!@-5! L3&&AT=' Z+R]W=W<N=7-E<G1R=7-T+F-O;3$V,#0&`U4$ M`Q,M551.+55315)&:7)S="U#;&EE;G0@075T:&5N=&EC871I;VX@86YD($5M M86EL`A!XJR36\(CRH\KTMD)-AP)3, D&!2L.`P(:!0"@@@)V,!@&"2J&2(;W M#0$)`S$+!@DJADB&]PT!!P$P' 8)*H9(AO<-`0D%,0\7#3 W,3(Q-S(R-30R M,5HP(P8)*H9(AO<-`0D$,18$%,BTB;J-MJNVD%.(-,N95>YS^?0M,&<&"2J& M2(;W#0$)#S%:,%@P"@8(*H9(AO<-`P<P#@8(*H9(AO<-`P("`@" , T&""J& M2(;W#0,"`@% , <&!2L.`P(', T&""J&2(;W#0,"`@$H, <&!2L.`P(:, H& M""J&2(;W#0(%,('4!@DK!@$$`8(W$ 0Q@<8P@<,P@:XQ"S )!@-5! 83`E53 M,0LP"08#500($P)55#$7,!4&`U4$!Q,.4V%L="!,86ME($-I='DQ'C <!@-5 M! H3%51H92!54T525%)54U0@3F5T=V]R:S$A,!\&`U4$"Q,8:'1T<#HO+W=W M=RYU<V5R=')U<W0N8V]M,38P- 8#500#$RU55$XM55-%4D9I<G-T+4-L:65N M="!!=71H96YT:6-A=&EO;B!A;F0@16UA:6P"$'BK)-;PB/*CRO2V0DV'`E,P M@=8&"RJ&2(;W#0$)$ (+,8'&H('#,(&N,0LP"08#500&$P)54S$+, D&`U4$ M"!,"550Q%S 5!@-5! <3#E-A;'0@3&%K92!#:71Y,1XP' 8#500*$Q54:&4@ M55-%4E1255-4($YE='=O<FLQ(3 ?!@-5! L3&&AT=' Z+R]W=W<N=7-E<G1R M=7-T+F-O;3$V,#0&`U4$`Q,M551.+55315)&:7)S="U#;&EE;G0@075T:&5N M=&EC871I;VX@86YD($5M86EL`A!XJR36\(CRH\KTMD)-AP)3, T&"2J&2(;W M#0$!`04`!((!`.\..6>?`, 49Q5X=VBH60O%3VGHIZ>05B'+6L_/G>)(Y2L% MZXL8CAT3]Y8J5(%*F&S=_4_)NP7 @^1,R0^7*HJ9IHH\F(@__>R$$7DO?0CL MXQ>#?B(!)KL"VI46'P%V'+O'@(E1,W+3,S[ZTT2DVS,YEPOQE#<#89ES'>@. M4?><;1<<5WKO<:+HK_#!HEV.-^"9.WP*OB#81BQI/_&=9^N#;9\4[22Y?XA+ MZM88BFU/,%#1ZDR?<.JJ/]Z>WR%7^4_>NK<0$B]D8ND\H^;S9=Q?$BX^%LC\ MWNVI3M `HQB<L0\%Y= =6(;5/A.E#B>J_*+$00044_JQ8\6R-;G"ZL,````` "```` ` end |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |