Thanks tisme-ga.  This is very helpful.
Daphne

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

Good enough answer. Direct to the point.

This answer has not been rated.

In the words of our 3 year old "Isn't this cool".  Thanks for your
help with our budding scientist!

Thanks tisme. Nice work.  I would have liked more critisism, but maybe
its getting to the point where there isn't much to find. i'll repost
looking for another review, see what else can be found. thanks for
your work and diligence. :-)

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

Oh dear, Tisme, you taken a very lofty approach.

Cricket ain't like that at all: the Indian bookies call the shots and
the late Hansie Cronje (spelling?) of South Africa made a killing from
fixing matches ...

In any event, the game needs a shot in the arm!

It's now time to turn it into a reality show.

But thanks anyway for your old-stick-in-the-mud train of thought and
the nursery tale which left me completely underwhelmed.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

Thanks! much appreciated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

thanks a lot for the advice! It was nice of you to lead me into the
right direction first before charging for the first text you wrote.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

Just what I was looking for.  Thanks very much.

This answer has not been rated.

At first I felt the answers were mediocre, 3 stars at best - the
researcher seemed to suppy his entire response with supplements from
Wikipedia ; I'm far from computer illiterate, I had already visited
most of those Wikipedia links because of what a quick and usually
satisfying source of information it can be (credible or not) -
however, it has never been, and most likely never will be, an
authorized, valid, "researchable" source of info, only casual at most.

The clarification is what saved him - he did more homework, added more
examples; I guess I get negative points for not really emphasizing
clearly, in the first place, that I wanted him to focus on Cuba being
this "exception" to disputed land treaties, a case where it happened a
long time ago and now a new government occupies the old and doesn't
recognize the treaty.

I hold no ill will against the researcher for running to Wikipedia,
only frown and want to caution him that, quite frankly, 1) it's too
easy, 2) it's not an "official" source, 3) and I'm willing to bet at
some of your clients here have already (at least, attempted) to use it
before they ask - in my case, I did an hour of research on Wikipedia
which ended in pseudo-confusion and not a lot of resolve or closure on
the issue - international law has never been my strong point. :)  I
didn't intend on paying someone $$$ to do exactly what I did, I
thought the $10 he would clear after Google's cut would be worth more
than that. :-/

For an outstanding recovery from what began as an average answer, I
would like to tip this researcher $5.  Points to the other researcher
for chipping in, I appreciate it.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.

I appreciate your research.

This answer has not been rated.

This answer has not been rated.