this has been my point from the beginning.  WHY are the abstractors the one who have to suffer?  If he is unable to borrow further funds, that in and of itself is indicative of a problem.  If he IS able to borrow but unable to pay down the credit line, then how are the abstractors to be paid?  This isn't Jim bashing.  This is discussing ANY company--and there are several--who follow the same business practices.  Why are the abstractors the ones who suffer when we are the ones LEAST likely to be able to stay afloat.  His--or any vendors'--cash flow problem becomes OUR cash flow problem and since most abstractors are independent and family operated, they have even less wiggle room.  I am not in the business of tearing down CRS.  But I AM sick and tired of abstractors coming in last and, more importantly, BELIEVING they belong there.  I understand Robert's point of having a company not go under.  I'd rather that CRS not go under either.  But should an ABSTRACTOR go under instead of the company (or companies) causing the problems.  Nothing against Robert personally, I think he's great, but I would have expected an officer of NALTEA to take the side of struggling abstractors before others.