Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330418 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-02 13:49 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-03 16:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:52 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:04 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 19:10 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:22 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 19:41 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:52 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-02 18:29 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:54 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:40 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 08:25 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 08:27 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 10:51 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:07 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:05 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:17 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 10:55 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 11:28 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 14:53 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:11 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:37 -0500
Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:14 -0500
Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:38 -0500
Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:47 -0500
Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:49 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 13:21 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:39 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:43 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-04 17:54 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 18:44 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 18:46 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 13:27 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 14:00 -0600
You are nutso. LMFAO!!!! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 13:48 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 15:50 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:16 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 16:37 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 22:40 +0100
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 17:23 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:46 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-05 19:58 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 21:19 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-06 06:47 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-06 07:05 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-07 09:17 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-07 09:28 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-09 10:03 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-09 10:06 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:09 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-07 09:47 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-06 09:40 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 09:49 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 11:03 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-07 09:18 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-07 09:48 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-09 10:15 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-09 10:06 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 09:27 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-06 23:09 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 18:48 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:56 -0700
The only phoney in here is you, JED. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:27 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-07 09:26 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:30 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 14:54 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:19 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:09 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 15:10 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:12 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 13:29 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 14:01 -0600
You are a liar. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 13:48 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 15:53 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:16 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-05 16:39 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:28 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 21:09 -0500
Mortimer Snerd and his usual DUH! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:29 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 16:44 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:18 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:39 -0500
My how Snit babbles on so. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:34 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-02 20:15 +0100
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-02 15:55 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-02 18:18 -0500
Buh bye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-03 06:34 -0500
Re: Buh bye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 07:56 -0600
Re: Buh bye Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:04 -0500
Re: Buh bye Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Now let Chris wipe your pee-pee, Turdv. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:05 -0700
Ah, the infamous "Buh Bye" by chicken-shit Alhstrom. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:05 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:42 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 14:15 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 20:50 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 22:02 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-03 09:43 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-02 11:20 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-02 15:57 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 14:10 -0600
Troll posing as "A Linux Professional" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Troll posing as "A Linux Professional" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 15:08 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:02 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 22:00 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:35 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2015-11-03 11:32 +1000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:08 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2015-11-05 11:58 +1000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 06:55 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:37 +0000
Moi cares ... John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:50 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:49 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-02 15:54 -0700
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2015-11-03 11:22 +1000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:07 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-03 13:12 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:33 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:47 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:11 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 10:31 -0500
I want to make it clear to *everybody* that crap like this is completely unacceptable John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:54 -0800
Re: I want to make it clear to *everybody* that crap like this is completely unacceptable Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:58 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 10:21 -0500
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Ron House <rhouse@smartchat.net.au> - 2015-11-05 12:07 +1000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-05 02:28 -0800
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 06:44 -0600
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-11-03 09:42 +0000
Re: A Linux Professional to Linux fans and enemies Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:09 -0500
Another idiot troll posing as "linux pro". News at 11 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 11:05 +0100
Re: Another idiot troll posing as "linux pro". News at 11 Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-03 11:03 -0500
Re: Another idiot troll posing as "linux pro". News at 11 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 11:30 -0500
Re: Another idiot troll posing as "linux pro". News at 11 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:07 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3kpj9.dek.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330726 |
On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
[deletia]
>> Sure is.
>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know
>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely
>> using MSOffice.
>>
>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal
>> document.
No one uses msoffice for legal documents.
Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered
by differing text document formats.
>
> Just irritating/embarrassing so far. Time wasters. Time is money.
>
> And yes, many are legal documents (contracts, agreements and so on).
> But no major damage. It's been years though.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wbvf6rspnn34$.ldccgh2a636f.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330893 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:11:21 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >> >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > > [deletia] > >>> Sure is. >>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>> using MSOffice. >>> >>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>> document. > > No one uses msoffice for legal documents. Tell that to my brother the district attorney of a major metropolis. You truly are an idiot Jeb. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 |
| Message-ID | <n1dsbg$81l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330901 |
"Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in message news:wbvf6rspnn34$.ldccgh2a636f.dlg@40tude.net... > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:11:21 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> >> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. > > Tell that to my brother the district attorney of a major metropolis. > You truly are an idiot Jeb. LOL - That's got to be the dumbest and most ignorant statement of 2015. Well done JED... well done. "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" - SPLORF!!!! -- "No one uses msoffice for legal documents" JED - as ignorant as ever. <slrnn3kpj9.dek.jedi@nomad.mishnet> Nov 4, 2015
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 |
| Message-ID | <wx0a13ohfoqu.1x4w3otqczpow$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330915 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:14:32 -0500, Ezekiel wrote: > "Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in > message news:wbvf6rspnn34$.ldccgh2a636f.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:11:21 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> >>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >> >> Tell that to my brother the district attorney of a major metropolis. >> You truly are an idiot Jeb. > > LOL - That's got to be the dumbest and most ignorant statement of 2015. > > Well done JED... well done. > > > "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" - SPLORF!!!! Jed is a Linux zombie. Anything Linux is automatically good. Anything not Linux, meaning alternatives to Linux, is automatically poor. Jed really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. He obviously hasn't had any experience in the modern world. Living in the past is no way to go through life Jed. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 |
| Message-ID | <n1du8g$f5u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330918 |
"Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in message news:wx0a13ohfoqu.1x4w3otqczpow$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:14:32 -0500, Ezekiel wrote: > >> "Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in >> message news:wbvf6rspnn34$.ldccgh2a636f.dlg@40tude.net... >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:11:21 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>> >>> Tell that to my brother the district attorney of a major metropolis. >>> You truly are an idiot Jeb. >> >> LOL - That's got to be the dumbest and most ignorant statement of 2015. >> >> Well done JED... well done. >> >> >> "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" - SPLORF!!!! > > Jed is a Linux zombie. Anything Linux is automatically good. > Anything not Linux, meaning alternatives to Linux, is automatically poor. JED is a freaking zombie, period. His brain is obviously fried or something. Just look at the way he writes... nobody in the world writes in such "rhymes and riddles" like him. That's the first clue. Then he makes the dumbest most idiotic claims in the world like this and he wonders why nobody takes him seriously. A kid in Jr. High School would have enough brains not to say something as stupid as: "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" > Jed really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. > He obviously hasn't had any experience in the modern world. > Living in the past is no way to go through life Jed. Living in the past? I think his fried brain is paying the price for too much LSD and bad airplane glue that he did in the past. That dimwit is beyond stupid. -- "HTML5 really doesn't standardize anything." JED - Dumber than dirt and not afraid to show it. <slrnm95t9v.q35.jedi@nomad.mishnet> Dec 18, 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Congrats JEDIDIAH - The most ignorant statement of 2015 |
| Message-ID | <11jewlh5yqxo9$.c1ild6x565c9.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330920 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:47:05 -0500, Ezekiel wrote: > "Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in > message news:wx0a13ohfoqu.1x4w3otqczpow$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:14:32 -0500, Ezekiel wrote: >> >>> "Big Fish in a Small Crotch" <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote in >>> message news:wbvf6rspnn34$.ldccgh2a636f.dlg@40tude.net... >>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:11:21 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>> >>>> Tell that to my brother the district attorney of a major metropolis. >>>> You truly are an idiot Jeb. >>> >>> LOL - That's got to be the dumbest and most ignorant statement of 2015. >>> >>> Well done JED... well done. >>> >>> >>> "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" - SPLORF!!!! >> >> Jed is a Linux zombie. Anything Linux is automatically good. >> Anything not Linux, meaning alternatives to Linux, is automatically poor. > > JED is a freaking zombie, period. His brain is obviously fried or something. > Just look at the way he writes... nobody in the world writes in such "rhymes > and riddles" like him. That's the first clue. > > Then he makes the dumbest most idiotic claims in the world like this and he > wonders why nobody takes him seriously. > > A kid in Jr. High School would have enough brains not to say something as > stupid as: "No one uses MSOffice for legal documents" > > > >> Jed really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. >> He obviously hasn't had any experience in the modern world. >> Living in the past is no way to go through life Jed. > > Living in the past? I think his fried brain is paying the price for too much > LSD and bad airplane glue that he did in the past. That dimwit is beyond > stupid. +10000 Brain fried by cheap drugs is probably the reason for his idiocy. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 13:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e5716a3f-1f15-4b96-901b-dd8a496373c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330893 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: > > On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: > > > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: > >> > >>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: > >>> > >>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > > [deletia] > > >> Sure is. > >> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know > >> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely > >> using MSOffice. > >> > >> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal > >> document. > > No one uses msoffice for legal documents. Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been encrypted via email.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vdo9t8307o79.3flip3tdso6f$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330917 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:21:04 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>> >>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> >> [deletia] >> >>>> Sure is. >>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>> using MSOffice. >>>> >>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>> document. >> >> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. > > Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS > Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been > encrypted via email. Same here. Jed has made another one of his idiotic statements. Let's see how many Linux advocates call him on it. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 17:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1e1ic$qgk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330919 |
On 2015-11-04 4:39 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:21:04 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>> >>> [deletia] >>> >>>>> Sure is. >>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>> >>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>>> document. >>> >>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >> >> Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS >> Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been >> encrypted via email. > > Same here. > > Jed has made another one of his idiotic statements. Let's see how many > Linux advocates call him on it. As far as I know, most legal offices will instead use WordPerfect Office for their documents. Some of its features seem to be popular with lawyers. If the documents ended up being in the .DOC or .DOCX format, it is likely that they converted them. Of course, many legal offices might have transitioned to Microsoft Office over time. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 17:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1e274$ud0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330942 |
"Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1e1ic$qgk$3@dont-email.me... > On 2015-11-04 4:39 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:21:04 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>> >>>> [deletia] >>>> >>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never >>>>>> know >>>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most >>>>>> likely >>>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>>> >>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a >>>>>> legal >>>>>> document. >>>> >>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>> >>> Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS >>> Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been >>> encrypted via email. >> >> Same here. >> >> Jed has made another one of his idiotic statements. Let's see how many >> Linux advocates call him on it. > > As far as I know, most legal offices will instead use WordPerfect Office > for their documents. Some of its features seem to be popular with > lawyers. If the documents ended up being in the .DOC or .DOCX format, it > is likely that they converted them. > > Of course, many legal offices might have transitioned to Microsoft > Office over time. > All it takes is one single law office to use MS-Word to blow JEDs idiotic claim out of the water. Wordperfect may have been the standard long ago, but that's no longer true. From the book - "Using Computers in the Law Office" <quote> LEGAL WORD-PROCESSING PROGRAMS: MICROSOFT WORD VS. COREL WORDPERFECT "The leading word-processing program for legal organizations is Microsoft Word...." </quote> https://books.google.com/books?id=RjAaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=wordperfect+msword+legal&source=bl&ots=0s_5ZFAFTL&sig=OtY5AEg5eI_woEuqVfPahfvx6YU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgKahUKEwi2qaO07PfIAhUGJCYKHdILBrQ#v=onepage&q=wordperfect%20msword%20legal&f=false And also... <quote> PA Law Practice Management Forgive me Corel. I love your WordPerfect product. But the reality I see for law firms is that the evil empire has won the war. And that’s not because of people like me who are of this opinion. It’s because of the majority of our clients, who have been in the Word world since it’s inception. Ultimately, in today’s competitive climate, what the client wants, the client gets. I also see it reflected in legal software produced by third party vendors. I am starting to see packages which have only Word versions. I also see that Word versions usually come out first, and are updated more often, when two versions are offered by a vendor. </quote> http://pa-lawpracticemanagement.com/wordperfect-versus-word/ Looking online at various legal-templates, etc I see way, way more things for MS-Word than for Wordperfect. That ship sailed a long time ago and isn't coming back. Note - We moved last summer. Sold one house and bought another (condo actually). We dealt with two different law firms and they both were using MS-Office. -- "Linux is the only reason Apple has anything like an App Store." Some fool named JED - July 26, 2015 <slrnmrairb.var.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1e55j$cj1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330948 |
On 2015-11-04 5:54 PM, Ezekiel wrote: > "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1e1ic$qgk$3@dont-email.me... >> On 2015-11-04 4:39 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:21:04 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [deletia] >>>>> >>>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most >>>>>>> likely >>>>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a >>>>>>> legal >>>>>>> document. >>>>> >>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>> >>>> Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS >>>> Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been >>>> encrypted via email. >>> >>> Same here. >>> >>> Jed has made another one of his idiotic statements. Let's see how many >>> Linux advocates call him on it. >> >> As far as I know, most legal offices will instead use WordPerfect Office >> for their documents. Some of its features seem to be popular with >> lawyers. If the documents ended up being in the .DOC or .DOCX format, it >> is likely that they converted them. >> >> Of course, many legal offices might have transitioned to Microsoft >> Office over time. >> > > All it takes is one single law office to use MS-Word to blow JEDs idiotic > claim out of the water. > > Wordperfect may have been the standard long ago, but that's no longer true. > > From the book - "Using Computers in the Law Office" > > <quote> > LEGAL WORD-PROCESSING PROGRAMS: > MICROSOFT WORD VS. COREL WORDPERFECT > > "The leading word-processing program for legal organizations is Microsoft > Word...." > </quote> > https://books.google.com/books?id=RjAaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=wordperfect+msword+legal&source=bl&ots=0s_5ZFAFTL&sig=OtY5AEg5eI_woEuqVfPahfvx6YU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgKahUKEwi2qaO07PfIAhUGJCYKHdILBrQ#v=onepage&q=wordperfect%20msword%20legal&f=false > > > And also... > <quote> > PA Law Practice Management > > Forgive me Corel. I love your WordPerfect product. But the reality I see for > law firms is that the evil empire has won the war. And that’s not because of > people like me who are of this opinion. It’s because of the majority of our > clients, who have been in the Word world since it’s inception. Ultimately, > in today’s competitive climate, what the client wants, the client gets. > > I also see it reflected in legal software produced by third party vendors. I > am starting to see packages which have only Word versions. I also see that > Word versions usually come out first, and are updated more often, when two > versions are offered by a vendor. > </quote> > http://pa-lawpracticemanagement.com/wordperfect-versus-word/ > > > Looking online at various legal-templates, etc I see way, way more things > for MS-Word than for Wordperfect. > > That ship sailed a long time ago and isn't coming back. > > Note - We moved last summer. Sold one house and bought another (condo > actually). We dealt with two different law firms and they both were using > MS-Office. Well, I can't say that I'm surprised. I owned a WordPerfect license around 2002 (gave it away when I sold my computer) and bought one recently. To say the least, little has changed in those ten years whereas Microsoft Office looks and behaves better than it used to. There might be some very innovative features in WordPerfect somewhere and they might not yet be implemented in Microsoft's software, but the interface is so awful that the user is actually _discouraged_ from looking for it. I rooted for them for a while, especially since their grammar checker is awesome, but it looks like Microsoft has won this one and sent all competition into the world of insignificance. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 18:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wklum5yi50kj$.f8i8gx3wawu0$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330959 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:44:58 -0500, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-04 5:54 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1e1ic$qgk$3@dont-email.me... >>> On 2015-11-04 4:39 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:21:04 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [deletia] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most >>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a >>>>>>>> legal >>>>>>>> document. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, right <eyroll>. Not only do people in the legal profession use MS >>>>> Office for legal documents, I've been sent docs that should have been >>>>> encrypted via email. >>>> >>>> Same here. >>>> >>>> Jed has made another one of his idiotic statements. Let's see how many >>>> Linux advocates call him on it. >>> >>> As far as I know, most legal offices will instead use WordPerfect Office >>> for their documents. Some of its features seem to be popular with >>> lawyers. If the documents ended up being in the .DOC or .DOCX format, it >>> is likely that they converted them. >>> >>> Of course, many legal offices might have transitioned to Microsoft >>> Office over time. >>> >> >> All it takes is one single law office to use MS-Word to blow JEDs idiotic >> claim out of the water. >> >> Wordperfect may have been the standard long ago, but that's no longer true. >> >> From the book - "Using Computers in the Law Office" >> >> <quote> >> LEGAL WORD-PROCESSING PROGRAMS: >> MICROSOFT WORD VS. COREL WORDPERFECT >> >> "The leading word-processing program for legal organizations is Microsoft >> Word...." >> </quote> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=RjAaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=wordperfect+msword+legal&source=bl&ots=0s_5ZFAFTL&sig=OtY5AEg5eI_woEuqVfPahfvx6YU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgKahUKEwi2qaO07PfIAhUGJCYKHdILBrQ#v=onepage&q=wordperfect%20msword%20legal&f=false >> >> >> And also... >> <quote> >> PA Law Practice Management >> >> Forgive me Corel. I love your WordPerfect product. But the reality I see for >> law firms is that the evil empire has won the war. And that’s not because of >> people like me who are of this opinion. It’s because of the majority of our >> clients, who have been in the Word world since it’s inception. Ultimately, >> in today’s competitive climate, what the client wants, the client gets. >> >> I also see it reflected in legal software produced by third party vendors. I >> am starting to see packages which have only Word versions. I also see that >> Word versions usually come out first, and are updated more often, when two >> versions are offered by a vendor. >> </quote> >> http://pa-lawpracticemanagement.com/wordperfect-versus-word/ >> >> >> Looking online at various legal-templates, etc I see way, way more things >> for MS-Word than for Wordperfect. >> >> That ship sailed a long time ago and isn't coming back. >> >> Note - We moved last summer. Sold one house and bought another (condo >> actually). We dealt with two different law firms and they both were using >> MS-Office. > > Well, I can't say that I'm surprised. I owned a WordPerfect license > around 2002 (gave it away when I sold my computer) and bought one > recently. To say the least, little has changed in those ten years > whereas Microsoft Office looks and behaves better than it used to. There > might be some very innovative features in WordPerfect somewhere and they > might not yet be implemented in Microsoft's software, but the interface > is so awful that the user is actually _discouraged_ from looking for it. > I rooted for them for a while, especially since their grammar checker is > awesome, but it looks like Microsoft has won this one and sent all > competition into the world of insignificance. Wordperfect used to be the standard here in USA but that has changed a long time ago. All MSOffice these days. Jed is once again making an ass of himself. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2015110513273751157-BL@LinuxProfessionalscom> |
| In reply to | #330893 |
On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: > On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >> >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > > [deletia] > >>> Sure is. >>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>> using MSOffice. >>> >>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>> document. > > No one uses msoffice for legal documents. False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal bearing. > > Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered > by differing text document formats. The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. Much easier to stay in one format. In the real world, such distractions are time wasting money losing things and are quickly discarded. > >> >> Just irritating/embarrassing so far. Time wasters. Time is money. >> >> And yes, many are legal documents (contracts, agreements and so on). >> But no major damage. It's been years though. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 14:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3ndbg.hha.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #331089 |
On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: > On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: > >> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>> >>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> >> [deletia] >> >>>> Sure is. >>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>> using MSOffice. >>>> >>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>> document. >> >> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. > > False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other > agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, > agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal > bearing. > > >> >> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered >> by differing text document formats. > > The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across > systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. It's either substantive or it isn't. BTW, msoffice is incapable of making this dinstinction itself. You need 3rd party tools to do that if you are actually dealing with an inhouse document that hasn't been exchanged with another party yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 13:48 -0700 |
| Subject | You are nutso. LMFAO!!!! |
| Message-ID | <Oqmdnc2qp44VXabLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #331115 |
On 11/05/15 13:00, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw<BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >> >>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw<BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>> >>> [deletia] >>> >>>>> Sure is. >>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>> >>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>>> document. >>> >>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >> >> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other >> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, >> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal >> bearing. >> >> >>> >>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered >>> by differing text document formats. >> >> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across >> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. > > There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. > > It's either substantive or it isn't. > > BTW, msoffice is incapable of making this dinstinction itself. You need > 3rd party tools to do that if you are actually dealing with an inhouse > document that hasn't been exchanged with another party yet. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2015110515502213665-BL@LinuxProfessionalscom> |
| In reply to | #331115 |
On 2015-11-05 20:00:48 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: > On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >> >>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>> >>> [deletia] >>> >>>>> Sure is. >>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>> >>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>>> document. >>> >>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >> >> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other >> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, >> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal >> bearing. >> >> >>> >>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered >>> by differing text document formats. >> >> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across >> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. > > There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. <<<<<< Whoosh >>>>>>>> The minor crap is what happens when people try to use non MS Word products when collaborating on a project. When everyone uses MS Word only, the minor crap that turns into time wasting corrections and requests for edits/exports and all the myriad crap is what wastes time when people wander away from using solely MS Word (and Excel). > > It's either substantive or it isn't. > > BTW, msoffice is incapable of making this dinstinction itself. You need > 3rd party tools to do that if you are actually dealing with an inhouse > document that hasn't been exchanged with another party yet. You don't understand where the error comes from. If party A ships a Word doc and party B edits their version in, eg, LibreOffice, and then Exports it to Word format back to party A, that is when the crap innevitably begins when party A opens the file and finds a lot of careful formatting messed up. So then party A has to repair the mess that party B induced. Time wasting nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 15:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3nhog.35q.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #331131 |
On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-05 20:00:48 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>>>> Sure is.
>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know
>>>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely
>>>>>> using MSOffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal
>>>>>> document.
>>>>
>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents.
>>>
>>> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other
>>> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's,
>>> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal
>>> bearing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered
>>>> by differing text document formats.
>>>
>>> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across
>>> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document.
>
>
><<<<<< Whoosh >>>>>>>>
No. You just don't understand the use case despite droning on about it.
[deletia]
Pick some other field to focus on because you don't understand this one
and you are trying to troll those that actually do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2015110516373176479-BL@LinuxProfessionalscom> |
| In reply to | #331137 |
On 2015-11-05 21:16:00 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: > On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >> On 2015-11-05 20:00:48 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >> >>> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [deletia] >>>>> >>>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will never know >>>>>>> how well your documents translate when sent to others who are most likely >>>>>>> using MSOffice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a legal >>>>>>> document. >>>>> >>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>> >>>> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other >>>> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, >>>> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal >>>> bearing. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be altered >>>>> by differing text document formats. >>>> >>>> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across >>>> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. >>> >>> There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. >> >> >> <<<<<< Whoosh >>>>>>>> > > No. You just don't understand the use case despite droning on about it. > > [deletia] > > Pick some other field to focus on because you don't understand this one > and you are trying to troll those that actually do. Horseshit. Collaborative efforts using LO are bounf to fail as the community at large uses, in the main, Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Most people have no clue as to what OpenOffice or LibreOffice are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1gi7u$g9u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331139 |
Bob Loblaw wrote: > On 2015-11-05 21:16:00 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: > >> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>> On 2015-11-05 20:00:48 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [deletia] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will >>>>>>>> never know how well your documents translate when sent to others >>>>>>>> who are most likely using MSOffice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a >>>>>>>> legal document. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>>> >>>>> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other >>>>> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, >>>>> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal >>>>> bearing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be >>>>>> altered by differing text document formats. >>>>> >>>>> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across >>>>> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. >>>> >>>> There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. >>> >>> >>> <<<<<< Whoosh >>>>>>>> >> >> No. You just don't understand the use case despite droning on about >> it. >> >> [deletia] >> >> Pick some other field to focus on because you don't understand this >> one >> and you are trying to troll those that actually do. > > Horseshit. Collaborative efforts using LO are bounf to fail as the > community at large uses, in the main, Word, Excel and Powerpoint. > > Most people have no clue as to what OpenOffice or LibreOffice are. Well, if they are on your "intellectual" level, I can even believe that. Heated dirt seems pretty smart compared to you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 17:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2015110517232270922-BL@LinuxProfessionalscom> |
| In reply to | #331141 |
On 2015-11-05 21:40:21 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said: > Bob Loblaw wrote: > >> On 2015-11-05 21:16:00 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >> >>> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-11-05 20:00:48 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-05, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-11-04 20:11:21 +0000, JEDIDIAH said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-03, Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 16:28:29 +0000, Big Fish in a Small Crotch said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:55:45 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 14:17:05 +0000, Charmed Tuna said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-11-03 8:05 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [deletia] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure is. >>>>>>>>> And if you don't have a copy of MSOffice to test with, you will >>>>>>>>> never know how well your documents translate when sent to others >>>>>>>>> who are most likely using MSOffice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It could range from embarrassing to very expensive should it be a >>>>>>>>> legal document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No one uses msoffice for legal documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> False. My lawyers use MS Word. Companies, governments and other >>>>>> agencies exchange mountains of MS Word docs which are LOI's, >>>>>> agreements, contracts, specifications, and so on and which have legal >>>>>> bearing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not that anything of any substance in a legal document should be >>>>>>> altered by differing text document formats. >>>>>> >>>>>> The issue is that as soon as people begin exporting/importing across >>>>>> systems, it becomes a distraction when minor crap has to be addressed. >>>>> >>>>> There is no such thing as "minor crap" in a legal document. >>>> >>>> >>>> <<<<<< Whoosh >>>>>>>> >>> >>> No. You just don't understand the use case despite droning on about >>> it. >>> >>> [deletia] >>> >>> Pick some other field to focus on because you don't understand this >>> one >>> and you are trying to troll those that actually do. >> >> Horseshit. Collaborative efforts using LO are bounf to fail as the >> community at large uses, in the main, Word, Excel and Powerpoint. >> >> Most people have no clue as to what OpenOffice or LibreOffice are. > > Well, if they are on your "intellectual" level, I can even believe that. > Heated dirt seems pretty smart compared to you Be objective. Get out and about and ask people what they use in their offiices. You will rarely hear anything other than the three apps above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web