[QUOTE=FDXLAG;836837]Glad u r done, I didnt imply anything. I said I think you added probably during your edit. We obviously have 2 different memories of the event. When I 1st read your post there was no probably, you remember it differently, makes no difference to me. Since your last edit was prior to our disagreement on the word probably you should be able to logically conclude I dont think you edited it to "win a petty argument". I think you edited to make the changes you already discussed and added the word probably without realizing it. You want to fight about it great.

Has nothing to do with whether we should be negotiating a loa and a contract at same time. You think it is a good idea and are hoping it is so. I dont.[/QUOTE

OK....I misread you...I apologize......for the record, I don't think it is a good idea, though I think it is likely the company may try it......once again, a wag.......more so for CGN then HKG......That being said...if the company unilaterally improved HKG to induce more to bid......I don't have a problem with that since SS can approve any change to LOA IAW authority given to him in LOA#2. I am not willing to give up any negotiating capital to improve HKG though. As far as CGN goes.....if they want an LOA for that.....well then we can put it in a new contract.