Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:1831 was omitted here (but included under appeals), as was 1864.Eh? 1831 was present in the message you're responding to. 1864 was missing because I hadn't recorded it yet; fixed in my current document.
*looks again* You're right, that was a mistake on my end. (I was deleting lines from a copy of the report after confirming that they matched the DB.)
