Thanks for your due diligence. I chose to omit the footnote, so I'll change this to PL OK..DrPGould wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 10:53 amNotes for Section 3:
Larry, well read and nicely done. It PL-OK as read--but--at ~7:29 footnote 17 is omitted. If that is what you intended, there are no changes necessary. However, it was not clear to me from the context of the footnote whether you intended to omit it or not. Hence, this note.
I'll PM the reader for the final section again. I hope we don't have an orphan.