Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #451234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-12 12:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 05:17 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 527 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-12 12:38 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 14:35 +0000
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 00:48 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 19:02 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 04:28 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 21:42 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 22:52 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 16:58 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 10:13 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 18:22 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 11:28 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:33 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 13:43 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 14:16 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 16:48 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:59 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 18:33 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 19:50 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 21:49 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 22:46 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 10:15 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 11:15 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:27 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 18:30 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:09 -0700
Does anyone here know of a proud bot owner who'd... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-14 13:36 -0700
Re: Does anyone here know of a proud bot owner who'd... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 14:13 -0700
Re: Does anyone here know of a proud bot owner who'd... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Does anyone here know of a proud bot owner who'd... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 14:43 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 14:42 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:22 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 15:41 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 16:54 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 17:00 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 19:53 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:04 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 20:22 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:34 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 20:37 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:50 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 20:56 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 23:24 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 21:00 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-14 21:18 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:01 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 11:25 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 12:15 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:10 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 13:47 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 13:59 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:08 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 14:30 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 15:48 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 16:26 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 17:38 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 20:14 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 16:18 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:43 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 16:50 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 17:22 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 17:36 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 18:05 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:48 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-15 18:41 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-15 19:31 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 12:08 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-15 19:54 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:07 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 13:43 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 14:36 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-15 21:53 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 14:56 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:49 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 17:59 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-16 01:47 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 18:52 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-16 02:05 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:09 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 01:10 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 19:11 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 19:07 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-16 23:20 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 19:47 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 05:45 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 06:02 +0000
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-17 09:01 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 15:16 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 16:26 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:42 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 10:21 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 09:57 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:26 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 10:33 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 11:08 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:07 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:14 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-17 11:57 -0500
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 10:22 -0700
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-17 13:44 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 10:52 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-17 14:26 -0500
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-17 16:43 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:09 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:16 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:46 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 15:40 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:53 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:36 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:30 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 15:42 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:14 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 17:07 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-18 00:39 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-18 01:17 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 18:30 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 12:52 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:45 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 15:39 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 18:27 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:21 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 19:49 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:08 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 20:17 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:25 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 20:37 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:53 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 21:10 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 21:22 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 21:31 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:04 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 13:03 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:12 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 13:34 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:50 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 14:02 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 15:37 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:47 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:04 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 18:29 -0700
Re: Observations Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-19 01:33 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 18:39 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 19:12 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 20:13 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:03 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 08:16 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-19 08:28 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-19 08:50 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:00 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-19 09:03 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:25 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-19 09:27 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:32 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 17:39 -0700
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-21 07:16 -0500
Re: Observations Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-21 09:20 -0400
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:23 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 08:22 -0500
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-21 09:31 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 09:59 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 11:23 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-21 19:28 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:39 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 20:21 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 00:31 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:09 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 09:47 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:04 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 10:17 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:29 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 10:42 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 10:38 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 11:05 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 11:44 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:32 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 12:36 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:44 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 12:48 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:20 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 13:31 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:36 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 15:04 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:23 -0700
Don't expect a good response. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-22 15:12 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 15:53 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:46 -0700
innerText Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-22 16:59 -0700
Re: innerText Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:39 -0700
Re: innerText Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 18:06 -0700
Re: innerText Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-23 01:18 +0000
Re: innerText Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:21 -0700
Re: innerText Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 18:32 -0700
Re: innerText Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 18:32 -0700
Re: innerText Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:49 -0700
Re: innerText RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:09 +0000
Why ? What's the goal ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-22 18:46 -0700
Re: Why ? What's the goal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:10 -0700
Re: Why ? What's the goal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 19:30 -0700
Re: Why ? What's the goal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 19:28 -0700
Re: Why ? What's the goal ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 20:37 -0700
Re: innerText Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:46 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 18:05 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:13 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 19:31 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:45 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 08:43 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 09:24 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:49 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 12:34 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:56 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 13:34 -0700
Tables Within Tables. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-23 13:56 -0700
Re: Tables Within Tables. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:10 -0700
If not a .CSV file, then what ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-23 14:47 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:19 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 17:59 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:14 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:23 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? quatloo <quatloo@tribble.net> - 2018-05-24 14:42 -0500
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 13:13 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? quatloo <quatloo@tribble.net> - 2018-05-25 09:21 -0500
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 09:13 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:22 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? quatloo <quatloo@tribble.net> - 2018-05-25 12:08 -0500
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:20 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:28 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:38 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:49 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:56 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:41 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:08 -0700
Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-25 11:22 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:50 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 11:55 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:45 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 14:12 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:42 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:23 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 15:39 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:12 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 18:25 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:56 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:24 +0000
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 19:35 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:46 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 19:51 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 19:05 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 15:26 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:13 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 18:42 -0700
Michael's PlanetKilling carbon dioxide. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-26 02:27 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 15:32 -0700
"trolling and flooding" your way to freedom, divorce. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-26 02:12 -0700
Re: "trolling and flooding" your way to freedom, divorce. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 02:36 -0700
Re: Apple products are a fashion statement; Linux users are "ugly". Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:01 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:13 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:14 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 09:17 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:31 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 09:43 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:53 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:18 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:54 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:40 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:11 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:39 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? quatloo <quatloo@tribble.net> - 2018-05-25 12:09 -0500
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:16 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:24 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:43 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:50 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:15 -0700
Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-26 02:44 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:53 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 10:15 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 11:48 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 11:58 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:06 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 12:13 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:41 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 20:21 +0000
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 14:05 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 14:46 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:04 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:27 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 16:31 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:40 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:58 -0700
Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 17:14 -0700
Re: Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 12:27 -0700
Re: Tech question for Carroll Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 12:50 -0700
Re: Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-29 08:52 -0700
Re: Tech question for Carroll Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:18 -0700
Re: Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-29 20:41 +0000
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 16:53 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:21 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:45 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 22:59 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-26 17:35 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 21:26 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:28 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 09:42 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:31 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 10:42 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 11:19 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:43 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 11:59 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 12:51 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 12:56 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 13:12 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:36 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 14:11 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:56 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 15:59 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 16:05 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:27 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:01 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 20:12 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 21:22 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:41 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:12 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:48 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:55 -0700
Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-29 14:41 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-29 12:12 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:13 -0700
Tech question for Carroll Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-29 14:40 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:36 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:28 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 13:02 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:12 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:48 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Mike is lying to himself because it's _useful_ to do so. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:56 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 14:23 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:48 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 15:30 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:43 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:03 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 10:21 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 13:09 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:00 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 16:51 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 20:17 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:53 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 21:30 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 21:47 -0700
The head shrinker. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-24 22:13 -0700
Re: The head shrinker. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:18 -0700
Re: The head shrinker. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 22:22 -0700
Re: The head shrinker. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:24 -0700
"kinder" is German for "children". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-24 22:39 -0700
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 23:26 -0700
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:58 -0700
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". quatloo <quatloo@tribble.net> - 2018-05-25 09:15 -0500
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 07:35 -0700
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:55 -0700
Re: "kinder" is German for "children". Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:24 -0700
Re: The head shrinker. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 22:19 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 22:04 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:10 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-24 22:16 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:22 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:25 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:19 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 20:25 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 21:06 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 23:26 -0700
Re: If not a .CSV file, then what ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 02:35 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:16 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:30 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 15:44 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:32 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 18:53 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:28 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 19:42 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:57 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:01 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:10 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:13 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:37 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 20:44 -0700
Ping Carroll: Why all the trolling? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-25 19:03 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-23 07:15 -0500
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:16 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:19 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 07:48 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-23 07:45 -0400
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 04:58 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 12:48 +0000
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 06:17 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:19 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:35 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 07:53 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:17 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 08:52 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:22 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 09:34 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:01 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 12:36 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:28 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 13:39 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:09 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:38 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-23 12:37 -0700
Re: Don't expect a good response. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:01 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-22 10:37 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-18 17:14 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:21 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-19 10:25 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 18:24 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 18:25 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:09 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 09:16 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:37 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 10:19 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:55 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:12 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 22:09 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 15:18 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 22:41 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 15:44 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:08 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:29 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 17:10 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:34 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 14:34 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:23 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 15:40 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:39 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 18:20 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:06 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 19:44 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:02 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 20:13 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:55 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 21:15 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 22:19 -0700
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-16 07:38 -0400
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 07:53 -0500
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-16 09:00 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 07:14 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 07:03 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 07:16 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:45 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 11:54 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:33 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:03 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-16 12:24 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 08:38 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 08:47 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-17 09:08 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:15 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:10 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 10:34 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-12 17:46 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 11:02 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 04:34 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:17 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 18:26 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Observations "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-13 19:26 +0000
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-13 12:34 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:48 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:51 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:52 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:39 -0700
Re: Observations "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-13 21:03 +0000
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 14:11 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:16 -0700
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 13:49 -0700
Re: Observations "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-12 19:41 +0000
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-12 16:06 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 13:23 -0700
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-12 20:52 +0000
Re: Observations "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-12 21:12 +0000
Re: Observations Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-12 23:52 +0200
Re: Observations Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-12 21:04 -0400
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 18:38 -0700
Re: Observations Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-12 19:03 -0700
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-14 07:05 -0500
Re: Observations Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-14 23:48 +0200
Re: Observations chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:27 -0500
Re: Observations Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:43 -0700
Wintroll predictions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 08:06 -0500
Re: Observations owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-13 05:17 +0000
Page 24 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szxb9080ga.go3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451645 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 4:08 PM, owl wrote: > ...>> As I said, so those were not built in names. You could have called > them >>> things like "pickle1" and not "table1". >> >> You don't need to name tables in SC, but you can, by naming the range >> that makes up the table. >> >>> And seems those named ranged are >>> called "indexes", or at least are created with the "index" command. >> >> Wrong. @index() is a builtin function that allows you to get data >> from a table, using row/column indices relative to that table. >> For instance if you decide to have a table at the range D10:K20, calling >> @index(D10:K20,2,4) will return the data in cell E13. If you have >> named the range "foo," you can just call @index(foo,2,4). > > Thanks. > > If I understand correctly the named range does not even stay as any > construct recognized by the application unless you name it How would it be that a "named range" does not have a name? If you don't give a name to the range, the application still recognizes the range, which is all *any* table is in *any* spreadsheet. > (in this case > "foo", but in the other example things like "table1"). If you do that > then you have a named range with, well, that name. :) > Which means it is a table with a name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6k03Ftp8nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451646 |
On 5/17/18 4:29 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/17/18 4:08 PM, owl wrote: >> ...>> As I said, so those were not built in names. You could have called >> them >>>> things like "pickle1" and not "table1". >>> >>> You don't need to name tables in SC, but you can, by naming the range >>> that makes up the table. >>> >>>> And seems those named ranged are >>>> called "indexes", or at least are created with the "index" command. >>> >>> Wrong. @index() is a builtin function that allows you to get data >>> from a table, using row/column indices relative to that table. >>> For instance if you decide to have a table at the range D10:K20, calling >>> @index(D10:K20,2,4) will return the data in cell E13. If you have >>> named the range "foo," you can just call @index(foo,2,4). >> >> Thanks. >> >> If I understand correctly the named range does not even stay as any >> construct recognized by the application unless you name it > > How would it be that a "named range" does not have a name? If you don't > give a name to the range, the application still recognizes the range, > which is all *any* table is in *any* spreadsheet. My mistake. Should have written: ----- If I understand correctly the range does not even stay as any construct recognized by the application unless you name it ---- Yeah, the added "named" in there completely mangles any meaning from what I said. Sorry 'bout that. :) >> (in this case >> "foo", but in the other example things like "table1"). If you do that >> then you have a named range with, well, that name. :) > > Which means it is a table with a name. Sure... you can call that a table. It is a different type table, in at least some ways, than what Numbers calls a table but that is fine by me. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e15434de-50c1-487c-bf42-97f602381276@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451601 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:20:00 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >> As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, > >> which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would > >> be better if they were more consistent though. > > > > All I saw was you point to one paragraph, and its use did not > > do what you're claiming. > > It speaks of presenting you with a "table" when it ... is "invoked", which doesn't mean you can't have multiple 'tables of data' on a single sheet... as owl has shown. > really presents you with a spreadsheet. It's presenting both. > You can set up a table on that spreadsheet, but by > default it does not have any tables set up. You can't read, They even use the term "empty" in the portion of the man page you just quoted: "When invoked it presents you with a table organized as rows and columns of cells. If invoked without a file argument, the table is initially empty." From that... anyone who can comprehend what they read can deduce: There is *always* at least 1 "table" present, even if it's "empty" > Nor does Excel. It does if you open a blank worksheet; there, you get an "empty" table in the sheet. > >> Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in > >> how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! > > > > LOL! In a computing context the term 'table' has always been to > > organize data into rows and columns. Why aren't you, Mr. PEE, > > calling for consistency to something that is this obvious? > > Before Owl corrected me and I did some research I made the same mistake > you are making now My contention is that a table organizes data into rows and columns. My contention is that sc gives you an empty table on a sheet when invoked. Where is my "mistake"? > >> But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different > >> spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides > >> and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than > >> we do now. > > > > Examples? > > Looked at Lotus 1-2-3 and was surprised to see it speak of > "spreadsheets" in the way sc and Excel does (though except when it > speaks of HTML tables it does not use the term "table" the way you do > above, Without screwing with it via CSS, HTML tables adhere to the normal concept of a table in that they'll format the data visually as organized into rows and columns. You need to see this a 3rd time? > or the way Numbers does... as I noted, Numbers uses the term > "table" more as HTML does than other spreadsheet programs). "more" how? > And, to my surprise, even AppleWorks on the Apple IIe speaks of multiple > tables on the same spreadsheet. > > So maybe I am wrong on that. I can accept that. Seems like you're having trouble doing so. > >> Most people get the context at least most of the time. > > > > The term is 'table', the context is 'computing'. Stick to that > > and the well worn definitions and you'll fine. > > Keep in mind you got confused between a spreadsheet (which is a grid of > labeled rows and columns) with that of a table (which is also a grid of > rows and columns, though not always labeled). Other than the post I wrote to owl, in what post did I use the term "spreadsheet" in the manner in which you're claiming here? In any event, like I said, a sheet in sc starts with an "empty" table, as is made clear in the man page... which removes this silly argument you're trying to foist onto me because you can't read (as shown above and *again* below). > > Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to > > organize data with the ability to have more than one table per > > worksheet? > > Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is > different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of > cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can > work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, > alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each > other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". Things like color are styling, a header "row" is the thing used to organize it and it doesn't break for the row/column paradigm. Working in concert with each other is not necessary for something to be a table, though, it is a standard feature of a serious app. You're obviously very confused, you're conflating a bunch of stuff and calling "others" "wrong". > >> But they do this for a reason and, except when first > >> learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people > >> outside of COLA. > > > > That I see, you're the only one who appears to be confused... > > except, even you pointed out owl's use was "correct". So are > > you just trolling? > > Owl's use was correct for sc (I think) ... and mostly though not fully > correct for Excel (where the term "table" has a very specific and > different meaning). Again... you can't read: "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows and columns that have been formatted as a table." That's it. Period. > He was not correct for how Numbers uses the term. You tacitly stated Numbers was incorrect yourself. How? I'm also waiting to see how a Numbers table is "more" like HTML than HTML is like Excel. No one, not Apple, not MS, you or owl can redefine what a "table" is, and conflating one with the features a given app might supply to its tables cannot change that fact. When I wrote: "Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself?" I was only being slightly sarcastic. I was more to the point when I wrote: "Some seem to have a bizarre penchant for relativism even when it makes no sense to apply it as they redefine industry standard terms." What'd I mean? You're conflating features of tables, or the lack thereof, with the tables themselves. You've conflated the "features" MS has given to their tables with the concept of a table in general. > I get this... at least largely. Given the subtle differences in how the > terms are used, and even the internal inconsistencies shown in the sc > man page That I've seen, the only inconsistencies you've shown are all based on your piss poor reading comprehension. > , when you get really pedantic as you and owl are pushing there > may still be some confusion. I see only you confused. > For myself and most people in the world The ol' argumentum ad populum won't help you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6ariFruqjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451616 |
On 5/17/18 12:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:20:00 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>> As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, >>>> which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would >>>> be better if they were more consistent though. >>> >>> All I saw was you point to one paragraph, and its use did not >>> do what you're claiming. >> >> It speaks of presenting you with a "table" when it > > .... is "invoked", which doesn't mean you can't have multiple > 'tables of data' on a single sheet... as owl has shown. > >> really presents you with a spreadsheet. > > It's presenting both. > >> You can set up a table on that spreadsheet, but by >> default it does not have any tables set up. > > You can't read, They even use the term "empty" in the portion of the man page > you just quoted: > > "When invoked it presents you with a table organized as rows and columns > of cells. If invoked without a file argument, the table is initially empty." > > From that... anyone who can comprehend what they read can deduce: > > There is *always* at least 1 "table" present, even if it's "empty" > >> Nor does Excel. > > It does if you open a blank worksheet; there, you get an "empty" table > in the sheet. > >>>> Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in >>>> how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! >>> >>> LOL! In a computing context the term 'table' has always been to >>> organize data into rows and columns. Why aren't you, Mr. PEE, >>> calling for consistency to something that is this obvious? >> >> Before Owl corrected me and I did some research I made the same mistake >> you are making now > > My contention is that a table organizes data into rows and columns. Which is not in contention... and given the context here, of discussing WHICH rows and columns and how they are organized, is indicative of the confusion of yours I have been noting. Fair enough. > My contention is that sc gives you an empty table on a sheet when > invoked. Where is my "mistake"? You also claim that you have an empty table in a blank worksheet. OK, by that view if you then create a table at C2:H8 and another at B12:L18 are you saying that to your way of thinking those tables are within tables... and all of that is in a worksheet? So the whole worksheet is one table and the other tables are embedded tables? If not, can you clarify? >>>> But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different >>>> spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides >>>> and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than >>>> we do now. >>> >>> Examples? >> >> Looked at Lotus 1-2-3 and was surprised to see it speak of >> "spreadsheets" in the way sc and Excel does (though except when it >> speaks of HTML tables it does not use the term "table" the way you do >> above, > > Without screwing with it via CSS, HTML tables adhere to the normal > concept of a table in that they'll format the data visually as organized > into rows and columns. You need to see this a 3rd time? Nobody needed this the FIRST time. You think it is needed because you are not understanding what you are reading. >> or the way Numbers does... as I noted, Numbers uses the term >> "table" more as HTML does than other spreadsheet programs). > > "more" how? Covered elsewhere: the tables are not in a bigger grid of cells (a worksheet) >> And, to my surprise, even AppleWorks on the Apple IIe speaks of multiple >> tables on the same spreadsheet. >> >> So maybe I am wrong on that. I can accept that. > > Seems like you're having trouble doing so. As, clearly, are you. But only one of us is willing to admit to our confusion. This is what I have noted time and time again: there is no shame in being wrong, it is how we react to it which is telling. You see it as a weakness for me to admit to being wrong... I see it as a strength. >>>> Most people get the context at least most of the time. >>> >>> The term is 'table', the context is 'computing'. Stick to that >>> and the well worn definitions and you'll fine. >> >> Keep in mind you got confused between a spreadsheet (which is a grid of >> labeled rows and columns) with that of a table (which is also a grid of >> rows and columns, though not always labeled). > > Other than the post I wrote to owl, in what post did I use the term > "spreadsheet" in the manner in which you're claiming here? In any event, > like I said, a sheet in sc starts with an "empty" table, as is made clear in > the man page... which removes this silly argument you're trying to foist > onto me because you can't read (as shown above and *again* below). See above. >>> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to >>> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per >>> worksheet? >> >> Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is >> different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of >> cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can >> work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, >> alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each >> other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". > > Things like color are styling, a header "row" is the thing used to organize > it and it doesn't break for the row/column paradigm. Working in concert > with each other is not necessary for something to be a table, though, it is > a standard feature of a serious app. You're obviously very confused, you're > conflating a bunch of stuff and calling "others" "wrong". Might I suggest you seek out a mirror. :) >>>> But they do this for a reason and, except when first >>>> learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people >>>> outside of COLA. >>> >>> That I see, you're the only one who appears to be confused... >>> except, even you pointed out owl's use was "correct". So are >>> you just trolling? >> >> Owl's use was correct for sc (I think) ... and mostly though not fully >> correct for Excel (where the term "table" has a very specific and >> different meaning). > > Again... you can't read: > > "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows > and columns that have been formatted as a table." > > That's it. Period. Then an empty worksheet, which is not formatted, is not a table. :) See, Carroll, you are playing semantic games and tying yourself in knots just to be "right". I am not interested in that. >> He was not correct for how Numbers uses the term. > > You tacitly stated Numbers was incorrect yourself. If you have an example of the Numbers help files or whatever using the terms inconsistently or whatever I am open to it... but the fact that different programs use these terms in somewhat different ways is not a sign any of them are "wrong". > How? I'm also waiting to see how a Numbers table is "more" like HTML than > HTML is like Excel. No one, not Apple, not MS, you or owl can redefine what > a "table" is, and conflating one with the features a given app might supply to > its tables cannot change that fact. Yet here you are playing semantic games! > When I wrote: "Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself?" > > I was only being slightly sarcastic. I was more to the point when I wrote: > > "Some seem to have a bizarre penchant for relativism even when it > makes no sense to apply it as they redefine industry standard terms." > > What'd I mean? You're conflating features of tables, or the lack thereof, with > the tables themselves. You've conflated the "features" MS has given to their > tables with the concept of a table in general. I am noting I have no desire to play your semantic games... and noting where you are clearly confused and refuse to admit it. But this is going nowhere... and if you continue without moving in a more interesting, and less trolling, direction I shall just give up on the thread only to have you whine I am "running" because I am not giving you the attention you crave. >> I get this... at least largely. Given the subtle differences in how the >> terms are used, and even the internal inconsistencies shown in the sc >> man page > > That I've seen, the only inconsistencies you've shown are all based > on your piss poor reading comprehension. You see everything in relation to me and your biases, sure. I am speaking objectively though. >> , when you get really pedantic as you and owl are pushing there >> may still be some confusion. > > I see only you confused. >> For myself and most people in the world -- novices or techies, >> though, we can use context to generally understand each other just >> fine. Most people do not get as pedantic as the two of you. > > The ol' argumentum ad populum won't help you. See how you snipped, again. This is what you do when you know you have no real point. What I am noting, clearly, is most people do not play the pedantic semantic games you and Owl like... and that NOT playing the actually increases understanding. Your insistence on playing such games has you all twisted up in your pretzel logic. And that is your issue, not mine... and I have no desire or obligation to help you dig yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself. In the past I have tried, and you only get more and more irrational and contradict yourself more and more and deny it more and more and then blame me for all of your issues. You are very guilty of that... by which I mean ACTUALLY guilty but I do not imply you have been found so in a court of law. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b13772e7-fda9-45e8-93b9-b77092f723e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451628 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 3:34:45 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 12:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:20:00 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> ... > >>>> As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, > >>>> which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would > >>>> be better if they were more consistent though. > >>> > >>> All I saw was you point to one paragraph, and its use did not > >>> do what you're claiming. > >> > >> It speaks of presenting you with a "table" when it > > > > .... is "invoked", which doesn't mean you can't have multiple > > 'tables of data' on a single sheet... as owl has shown. > > > >> really presents you with a spreadsheet. > > > > It's presenting both. > > > >> You can set up a table on that spreadsheet, but by > >> default it does not have any tables set up. > > > > You can't read, They even use the term "empty" in the portion of the man page > > you just quoted: > > > > "When invoked it presents you with a table organized as rows and columns > > of cells. If invoked without a file argument, the table is initially empty." > > > > From that... anyone who can comprehend what they read can deduce: > > > > There is *always* at least 1 "table" present, even if it's "empty" > > > >> Nor does Excel. > > > > It does if you open a blank worksheet; there, you get an "empty" table > > in the sheet. > > > >>>> Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in > >>>> how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! > >>> > >>> LOL! In a computing context the term 'table' has always been to > >>> organize data into rows and columns. Why aren't you, Mr. PEE, > >>> calling for consistency to something that is this obvious? > >> > >> Before Owl corrected me and I did some research I made the same mistake > >> you are making now > > > > My contention is that a table organizes data into rows and columns. > > Which is not in contention So this isn't part of my alleged "mistake". Got it. > > My contention is that sc gives you an empty table on a sheet when > > invoked. Where is my "mistake"? > > You also claim that you have an empty table in a blank worksheet. I'm assessing what their man page stated. I'm doing it differently than you have, which indicates that they are "wrong". I say they're right as per the most commonly accepted definition of the word "table", which references rows and columns. Lots of things in computer world can be "empty" of data... a file, a project... a table is no different. > So the whole worksheet is ... instantiated with... > one table and the other tables are embedded tables? The initial "empty" one and any subsequent ones are all "embedded" in the sheet. No "mistake" on my part here, either. > >>>> But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different > >>>> spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides > >>>> and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than > >>>> we do now. > >>> > >>> Examples? > >> > >> Looked at Lotus 1-2-3 and was surprised to see it speak of > >> "spreadsheets" in the way sc and Excel does (though except when it > >> speaks of HTML tables it does not use the term "table" the way you do > >> above, > > > > Without screwing with it via CSS, HTML tables adhere to the normal > > concept of a table in that they'll format the data visually as organized > > into rows and columns. You need to see this a 3rd time? > > Nobody needed this the FIRST time. Nobody but you, apparently. > You think it is needed because you > are not understanding what you are reading. You *claim* I made a "mistake". Where 's the quote of this alleged "mistake"? > >> or the way Numbers does... as I noted, Numbers uses the term > >> "table" more as HTML does than other spreadsheet programs). > > > > "more" how? > > Covered elsewhere: the tables are not in a bigger grid of cells (a > worksheet) I could create a "table" inside of a Numbers "worksheet" and it could be smaller than the "bigger grid of cells" made available to me. Same goes for HTML, Excel, etc. BUT... like Excel, the "elements" (to use MS' term) of a Numbers "table" have more in common with Excel than they do HTML, far more. You're getting stuck on tables as they exist within a sheet, but the issue isn't tables, it's how sheets treat them (specifically, how Numbers tables in a sheet). > >> And, to my surprise, even AppleWorks on the Apple IIe speaks of multiple > >> tables on the same spreadsheet. > >> > >> So maybe I am wrong on that. I can accept that. > > > > Seems like you're having trouble doing so. > > As, clearly, are you. But only one of us is willing to admit to our > confusion. It's not "our" confusion, it's yours. Like I said, you're conflating stuff, you're confusing a table with damn near everything else there is to confuse it with. > >>>> Most people get the context at least most of the time. > >>> > >>> The term is 'table', the context is 'computing'. Stick to that > >>> and the well worn definitions and you'll fine. > >> > >> Keep in mind you got confused between a spreadsheet (which is a grid of > >> labeled rows and columns) with that of a table (which is also a grid of > >> rows and columns, though not always labeled). > > > > Other than the post I wrote to owl, in what post did I use the term > > "spreadsheet" in the manner in which you're claiming here? In any event, > > like I said, a sheet in sc starts with an "empty" table, as is made clear in > > the man page... which removes this silly argument you're trying to foist > > onto me because you can't read (as shown above and *again* below). > > See above. There is nothing that addresses *my* alleged 'confusion' above. I obviously know what a table is, you obviously don't. > >>> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to > >>> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per > >>> worksheet? > >> > >> Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is > >> different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of > >> cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can > >> work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, > >> alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each > >> other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". > > > > Things like color are styling, a header "row" is the thing used to organize > > it and it doesn't break for the row/column paradigm. Working in concert > > with each other is not necessary for something to be a table, though, it is > > a standard feature of a serious app. You're obviously very confused, you're > > conflating a bunch of stuff and calling "others" "wrong". > > Might I suggest you seek out a mirror. :) I can see your confusion just fine looking straight at it. > >>>> But they do this for a reason and, except when first > >>>> learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people > >>>> outside of COLA. > >>> > >>> That I see, you're the only one who appears to be confused... > >>> except, even you pointed out owl's use was "correct". So are > >>> you just trolling? > >> > >> Owl's use was correct for sc (I think) ... and mostly though not fully > >> correct for Excel (where the term "table" has a very specific and > >> different meaning). > > > > Again... you can't read: > > > > "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows > > and columns that have been formatted as a table." > > > > That's it. Period. > > Then an empty worksheet, which is not formatted, is not a table. :) Who said it is? If it comes up in an app where there is absolutely no foundational, formatted grid you can't really call it a table, can you? If you see a formatted grid, it's a table, even if it's "empty". Even a pre-schooler grasps the concept of "empty", who knows why you're having so much trouble with it <shrug>. > >> He was not correct for how Numbers uses the term. > > > > You tacitly stated Numbers was incorrect yourself. > > If you have an example of the Numbers help files or whatever using the > terms inconsistently or whatever I am open to it... but the fact that > different programs use these terms in somewhat different ways is not a > sign any of them are "wrong". > > > How? I'm also waiting to see how a Numbers table is "more" like HTML than > > HTML is like Excel. No one, not Apple, not MS, you or owl can redefine what > > a "table" is, and conflating one with the features a given app might supply to > > its tables cannot change that fact. > > Yet here you are playing semantic games! Here you are displaying you can't read or understand a basic concept like "empty". Why you regularly do these things in public is most bizarre. > > When I wrote: "Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself?" > > > > I was only being slightly sarcastic. I was more to the point when I wrote: > > > > "Some seem to have a bizarre penchant for relativism even when it > > makes no sense to apply it as they redefine industry standard terms." > > > > What'd I mean? You're conflating features of tables, or the lack thereof, with > > the tables themselves. You've conflated the "features" MS has given to their > > tables with the concept of a table in general. > > I am noting I have no desire to play your semantic games... and noting > where you are clearly confused and refuse to admit it. > > But this is going nowhere... and if you continue without moving in a > more interesting, and less trolling, direction I shall just give up on > the thread only to have you whine I am "running" because I am not giving > you the attention you crave. Translation: Snit knows he can't read, it's been shown he can't read and he's now trying to shine a light away from the fact that he can't. > >> I get this... at least largely. Given the subtle differences in how the > >> terms are used, and even the internal inconsistencies shown in the sc > >> man page > > > > That I've seen, the only inconsistencies you've shown are all based > > on your piss poor reading comprehension. > > You see everything in relation to me and your biases, sure. I am > speaking objectively though. LOL! You mangled the living snot outta that man page and then 'spoke' about it... *heavily* influenced by your inability to comprehend what you'd read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6emhFsov9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451635 |
On 5/17/18 3:23 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> My contention is that a table organizes data into rows and columns. >> >> Which is not in contention > > So this isn't part of my alleged "mistake". Got it. I have given up even trying to track what twists and turns you have gotten yourself into with your pretzel logic. ... >> You also claim that you have an empty table in a blank worksheet. > > I'm assessing what their man page stated. I'm doing it differently than > you have, which indicates that they are "wrong". I say they're right as > per the most commonly accepted definition of the word "table", which > references rows and columns. Lots of things in computer world can > be "empty" of data... a file, a project... a table is no different. So are you or are you not saying you have an empty table in a blank worksheet? Or do you know at this point? >> So the whole worksheet is > > .... instantiated with... > >> one table and the other tables are embedded tables? > > The initial "empty" one and any subsequent ones are all "embedded" > in the sheet. No "mistake" on my part here, either. OK, so you see the whole worksheet as one table. Seems the answer to the above question is "yes", though I suspect you will be hesitant to give a direct answer. If so this would be a pretty clear sign your own pretzel logic is getting you confused. Fair enough. ... >>> Without screwing with it via CSS, HTML tables adhere to the normal >>> concept of a table in that they'll format the data visually as organized >>> into rows and columns. You need to see this a 3rd time? >> >> Nobody needed this the FIRST time. > > Nobody but you, apparently. Keep in mind that what is "apparent" to you often has no relation to reality. ...>> Covered elsewhere: the tables are not in a bigger grid of cells (a >> worksheet) > > I could create a "table" inside of a Numbers "worksheet" and it could > be smaller than the "bigger grid of cells" made available to me. You could refer to a range in a table as a table, if that is what you mean... though that is not the terminology used by the program. Seems you are getting caught up in your semantic confusion, though, of which I do not share. Fair enough. ... >>> "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows >>> and columns that have been formatted as a table." >>> >>> That's it. Period. >> >> Then an empty worksheet, which is not formatted, is not a table. :) > > Who said it is? LOL! As I said, you get yourself so caught up in your pretzel logic you have no clue what you are arguing for or against. :) > If it comes up in an app where there is absolutely no > foundational, formatted grid you can't really call it a table, can you? And even in places where there is such a grid, the term used might be "worksheet" and not "table" (as Owl noted and I verified with research). Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is getting pedantic. > If you see a formatted grid, it's a table, even if it's "empty". Even a > pre-schooler grasps the concept of "empty", who knows why you're > having so much trouble with it <shrug>. You assume I am even trying to follow your pedantic semantic games. I am (mostly) not, though I am enjoying you twist yourself up in knots and then deny it. :) ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <398ba9aa-7989-49fa-818a-243878a27ba9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451638 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 4:40:21 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 3:23 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>> My contention is that a table organizes data into rows and columns. > >> > >> Which is not in contention > > > > So this isn't part of my alleged "mistake". Got it. > > I have given up even trying to track ... reality? I know ;) > >> You also claim that you have an empty table in a blank worksheet. > > > > I'm assessing what their man page stated. I'm doing it differently than > > you have, which indicates that they are "wrong". I say they're right as > > per the most commonly accepted definition of the word "table", which > > references rows and columns. Lots of things in computer world can > > be "empty" of data... a file, a project... a table is no different. > > So are you or are you not saying you have an empty table in a blank > worksheet? Or do you know at this point? Wow. > >> So the whole worksheet is > > > > .... instantiated with... > > > >> one table and the other tables are embedded tables? > > > > The initial "empty" one and any subsequent ones are all "embedded" > > in the sheet. No "mistake" on my part here, either. > > OK, so you see the whole worksheet as one table. When it's first instantiated with an "empty" table I see the "whole worksheet" as *containing* one "empty" table. > Seems the answer to the above question is "yes", LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and the table or tables that it contains. That Numbers only allows 1 table has you all confused, apparently. When Excel uses a term like "Blank Worksheet" for a sheet that will come up with an "empty" table, I understand that the sheet is "blank" only from the perspective that the table has no data in it, but the fact of the matter is, the thing has already been pre-formatted *as* a table so the worksheet itself isn't "empty", it's merely a "blank" (but formatted) container waiting to be filled with *tabular* data. Blank, in this context, means a template, not entirely "empty", it's only empty of user data. > >>> Without screwing with it via CSS, HTML tables adhere to the normal > >>> concept of a table in that they'll format the data visually as organized > >>> into rows and columns. You need to see this a 3rd time? > >> > >> Nobody needed this the FIRST time. > > > > Nobody but you, apparently. > > Keep in mind that what is "apparent" to you often has no relation to > reality. Said the guys who repeatedly proves he can't read reality ;) > ...>> Covered elsewhere: the tables are not in a c(a > >> worksheet) > > > > I could create a "table" inside of a Numbers "worksheet" and it could > > be smaller than the "bigger grid of cells" made available to me. > > You could refer to a range in a table as a table, I could start the labeling and the inputting of data in a subset of the "bigger grid of cells" available to me. I can do that in any of these apps and in HTML. IOW, your argument there failed. > ... > >>> "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows > >>> and columns that have been formatted as a table." > >>> > >>> That's it. Period. > >> > >> Then an empty worksheet, which is not formatted, is not a table. :) > > > > Who said it is? > > LOL! As I said, you get yourself so caught up in your pretzel logic you > have no clue what you are arguing for or against. :) So show were I claimed it. You can't. IOW, this is more of your 'face saving' posturing... which never works. > > If it comes up in an app where there is absolutely no > > foundational, formatted grid you can't really call it a table, can you? > > And even in places where there is such a grid, the term used might be > "worksheet" and not "table" (as Owl noted and I verified with research). LOL! You keep trying but I haven't seen anything that knocks down the definition of the word table. If it's formatted *as* a table it *is* a table, even if it's "empty". > Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and > for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is > getting pedantic. I have no idea what you're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6o26F16mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451647 |
On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... > LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and > the table or tables that it contains. If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? > That Numbers only allows > 1 table has you all confused, apparently. Numbers allows for more than one table... even on the same sheet. And if you use the concept of table that you and Owl speak of, you can even have multiple ranges one could fairly call tables in one table, though that might lead to some confusion. In general I would say it is best in Numbers to NOT do that, for much the same reason you normalize tables in a database. > When Excel uses a > term like "Blank Worksheet" for a sheet that will come up with > an "empty" table, I understand that the sheet is "blank" only > from the perspective that the table has no data in it, but the > fact of the matter is, the thing has already been pre-formatted > *as* a table so the worksheet itself isn't "empty", it's merely a > "blank" (but formatted) container waiting to be filled with > *tabular* data. Blank, in this context, means a template, not > entirely "empty", it's only empty of user data. I am fine with that but be aware Owl is speaking of ranges in that table as tables, and not the full worksheet as a table. Again, though, in context this is rarely an issue. In the conversation I was having with Owl, though, I spoke of the tables that Numbers use -- the type where it is generally unwise to have a table within a table -- and he jumped to ranges in the table (the full worksheet) you speak of (which, as he noted, can ALSO be called tables). ... >> You could refer to a range in a table as a table, > > I could start the labeling and the inputting of data in a subset > of the "bigger grid of cells" available to me. I can do that in any > of these apps and in HTML. IOW, your argument there failed. Failed at stopping you from playing semantic games... sure. There is NOTHING I can do to stop that. That is on you. But it is absolutely true you can refer to a range of a table as a table, as we both note above, and as Owl has noted. > >> ... >>>>> "A table typically contains related data in a series of worksheet rows >>>>> and columns that have been formatted as a table." >>>>> >>>>> That's it. Period. >>>> >>>> Then an empty worksheet, which is not formatted, is not a table. :) >>> >>> Who said it is? >> >> LOL! As I said, you get yourself so caught up in your pretzel logic you >> have no clue what you are arguing for or against. :) > > So show were I claimed it. You can't. IOW, this is more of your 'face saving' > posturing... which never works. What are you even talking about? You say things... I note them... you snip and play games and push the conversation into meta-games and other nonsense, then ask me to quote old stuff from the conversation back to you. I used to play that game with you. I might still sometimes. But when I do not it is not a sign of my failing in any way... heck, it really is a sign of my being more successful at not getting pulled into your idiotic pedantic semantic games. >>> If it comes up in an app where there is absolutely no >>> foundational, formatted grid you can't really call it a table, can you? >> >> And even in places where there is such a grid, the term used might be >> "worksheet" and not "table" (as Owl noted and I verified with research). > > LOL! You keep trying but I haven't seen anything that knocks down the > definition of the word table. LOL! What? Are you having a conversation in your head with someone else who is trying to "knock down the definition of the word table"? See: that is the type of nonsense I mean. I do not even care to try to figure out what voices you have in your head that lead you to say such things. > If it's formatted *as* a table it *is* a table, > even if it's "empty". Do you mean the worksheet... the one that can hold tables (and commonly do in sc and Excel)? >> Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and >> for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is >> getting pedantic. > > I have no idea what you're talking about. I called the worksheet a table (or called the full range of the worksheet a table if you want to be pedantic, which you love to do). He corrected me and noted that tables are ranges in the worksheet. You call the full range a table, too. I am fine with that. And I am fine with calling a range a table, too, when it makes sense, even if it is not set as a table in Excel. It is a matter of context... and you are just playing word games and giving no context. It is what you do. Then you deem yourself the winner of some game nobody else is playing and say I need to save face because I did not repeat your own words back to you again and convince you of your own confusion which you will never admit to or some idiotic shit like that. In other words, you see any conversation as a battle, and you play by rules which are idiotic. Then you slap yourself on the back for a well played "game" and deem yourself the winner. Well, good for you! You get ALL the gold stars. Now let's talk tech instead of your word play with the term "table". Or at least be done with your word play. Fair enough? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <714a52b3-a588-4fbd-96a9-3ba79bc61ced@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451653 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > > LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and > > the table or tables that it contains. > > If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full > range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. > > That Numbers only allows > > 1 table has you all confused, apparently. > > Numbers allows for more than one table... even on the same sheet. On import? Wasn't 'interactive with external stuff' the context here (that's what I saw owl originally talking about)? That I'm aware of, Numbers won't do that... unless they've changed it. > And if > you use the concept of table that you and Owl speak of, you can even > have multiple ranges one could fairly call tables in one table, though > that might lead to some confusion. In general I would say it is best in > Numbers to NOT do that, for much the same reason you normalize tables in > a database. > > > When Excel uses a > > term like "Blank Worksheet" for a sheet that will come up with > > an "empty" table, I understand that the sheet is "blank" only > > from the perspective that the table has no data in it, but the > > fact of the matter is, the thing has already been pre-formatted > > *as* a table so the worksheet itself isn't "empty", it's merely a > > "blank" (but formatted) container waiting to be filled with > > *tabular* data. Blank, in this context, means a template, not > > entirely "empty", it's only empty of user data. > > I am fine with that but be aware Owl is speaking of ranges in that table > as tables, and not the full worksheet as a table. In essence, even a range of cells could be a table. Consider what Excel support said about things typically being related (not that they have to be in order to be considered a table but it's common). So... you could have a range of cells that are within a table that are, themselves, another (self contained, by context) table. But they do not *have* to be related, that's just the most common way they're used. > >> Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and > >> for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is > >> getting pedantic. > > > > I have no idea what you're talking about. > > I called the worksheet a table (or called the full range of the > worksheet a table if you want to be pedantic, which you love to do). He > corrected me and noted that tables are ranges in the worksheet. You call > the full range a table, too. I call whatever is formatted *as* a table... a table, the size isn't relevant, nor is the fact that it may be empty. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you. > I am fine with that. And I am fine with > calling a range a table, too, when it makes sense, even if it is not set > as a table in Excel. I don't understand why you're all tied up in knots on this. > It is a matter of context... and you are just playing word games and > giving no context. Bull, I gave plenty of context, you just glossed right over it. > Now let's talk tech I'm talking tech... I've been doing so all along.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6t0nFuqjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451658 |
On 5/17/18 7:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>> LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and >>> the table or tables that it contains. >> >> If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full >> range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? > > If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". > IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. LOL! Oh the irony. >>> That Numbers only allows >>> 1 table has you all confused, apparently. >> >> Numbers allows for more than one table... even on the same sheet. > > On import? Importing of what? I just tried an old Numbers '09 file and it came in fine, but it has no real "import" feature. It can OPEN older files though. But what other formats even support multiple tables per sheet [1]? [1] PLEASE keep in mind the context here of tables! ... >> I am fine with that but be aware Owl is speaking of ranges in that table >> as tables, and not the full worksheet as a table. > > In essence, even a range of cells could be a table. Sure. That is what Owl keeps going on about. Of course that is a different context than the above use of the term, but you get VERY confused by context. > Consider what > Excel support said about things typically being related (not that > they have to be in order to be considered a table but it's common). > So... you could have a range of cells that are within a table that are, > themselves, another (self contained, by context) table. But they do > not *have* to be related, that's just the most common way they're > used. Sure. >>>> Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and >>>> for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is >>>> getting pedantic. >>> >>> I have no idea what you're talking about. >> >> I called the worksheet a table (or called the full range of the >> worksheet a table if you want to be pedantic, which you love to do). He >> corrected me and noted that tables are ranges in the worksheet. You call >> the full range a table, too. > > I call whatever is formatted *as* a table... a table, the size isn't relevant, > nor is the fact that it may be empty. I don't know how I can make this > any more clear to you. I am quite happy with just using context... I have no desire to play your pedantic semantic games. I keep telling you this and you show no understanding of it. Whatever. >> I am fine with that. And I am fine with >> calling a range a table, too, when it makes sense, even if it is not set >> as a table in Excel. > > I don't understand why you're all tied up in knots on this. LOL! Please tell me you are actively and purposely being ironic. >> It is a matter of context... and you are just playing word games and >> giving no context. > > Bull, I gave plenty of context, you just glossed right over it. See: you will now blame me for your nonsense. Who could have guessed! >> Now let's talk tech > > I'm talking tech... I've been doing so all along. No: you are playing semantic games with the word "table" and hoping I will join in. I *sorta* am in that I am responding, but not enough to really please you. You want me to pick some specific definition so you can show where in a different context I used the term in a different way. Oh well. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <612ed80a-8b11-4d1b-bb5d-54fbc8af443e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451660 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:44:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 7:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> ... > >>> LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and > >>> the table or tables that it contains. > >> > >> If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full > >> range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? > > > > If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". > > IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. > > LOL! Oh the irony. What irony? You're the one going on an on about something that only you are having trouble grasping. > >>> That Numbers only allows > >>> 1 table has you all confused, apparently. > >> > >> Numbers allows for more than one table... even on the same sheet. > > > > On import? > > Importing of what? Of owl's statement regarding "external sheets/files", obviously. > I just tried an old Numbers '09 file and it came in > fine, but it has no real "import" feature. It can OPEN older files > though. But what other formats even support multiple tables per sheet [1]? > > [1] PLEASE keep in mind the context here of tables! For *you* the context was *defining* what a table even is. Owl brought up the point of interaction with externals early on. I can't help if you are micofocusing on that which confused you but he did: "And Numbers cannot communicate with external sheets/files, while sc can." - owl That's the context I was addressing, that you apparently glossed over, like you have a bunch of stuff in this thread <shrug>. > >> I am fine with that but be aware Owl is speaking of ranges in that table > >> as tables, and not the full worksheet as a table. > > > > In essence, even a range of cells could be a table. > > Sure. That is what Owl keeps going on about. Of course that is a > different context than the above use of the term, but you get VERY > confused by context. LOL! You're the one confused by it, as you usually are. A table is a table in any context. See how that knocked your BS into the dirt? > > Consider what > > Excel support said about things typically being related (not that > > they have to be in order to be considered a table but it's common). > > So... you could have a range of cells that are within a table that are, > > themselves, another (self contained, by context) table. But they do > > not *have* to be related, that's just the most common way they're > > used. > > Sure. You keep saying things like "Sure" or"right" but then you step on your clit with a track shoe ;) > >>>> Now, granted, you could call such a construct a "table", as I did and > >>>> for which Owl corrected me on, but this seldom matters unless one is > >>>> getting pedantic. > >>> > >>> I have no idea what you're talking about. > >> > >> I called the worksheet a table (or called the full range of the > >> worksheet a table if you want to be pedantic, which you love to do). He > >> corrected me and noted that tables are ranges in the worksheet. You call > >> the full range a table, too. > > > > I call whatever is formatted *as* a table... a table, the size isn't relevant, > > nor is the fact that it may be empty. I don't know how I can make this > > any more clear to you. > > I am quite happy with just using context... You're going to need to understand what it is, then. > >> I am fine with that. And I am fine with > >> calling a range a table, too, when it makes sense, even if it is not set > >> as a table in Excel. > > > > I don't understand why you're all tied up in knots on this. > > LOL! Please tell me you are actively and purposely being ironic. No, I'm serious, you're, apparently, all distraught over a simple concept. Either that or you're just trolling... doesn't really matter which. > >> It is a matter of context... and you are just playing word games and > >> giving no context. > > > > Bull, I gave plenty of context, you just glossed right over it. > > See: you will now blame me for your nonsense. Who could have guessed! Everyone could guess that you'll have trouble comprehending what you've read, in fact, they could bet on it ;) > >> Now let's talk tech > > > > I'm talking tech... I've been doing so all along. > > No: you are playing semantic games with the word "table" Nah... I've never wavered from how I've described it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6ulvF192aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451662 |
On 5/17/18 8:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:44:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 7:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and >>>>> the table or tables that it contains. >>>> >>>> If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full >>>> range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? >>> >>> If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". >>> IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. >> >> LOL! Oh the irony. > > What irony? You're the one going on an on about something that only you > are having trouble grasping. If you are not caught up on some exact definition of the word "table" you can use in any context, even though it has somewhat different meanings in different contexts, what are you even disagreeing with me about? Heck, you have made it pretty darn clear you agree with me about the original topic of Numbers being a different type of spreadsheet application than Excel or Numbers. I sincerely have no clue what point you are trying to make or what you think I disagree with. But this is how discussions with you go: you argue to argue and never really make a point other than semantic nits and whining you have been so horribly misunderstood. ...>>>> I am fine with that. And I am fine with >>>> calling a range a table, too, when it makes sense, even if it is not set >>>> as a table in Excel. >>> >>> I don't understand why you're all tied up in knots on this. >> >> LOL! Please tell me you are actively and purposely being ironic. > > No, I'm serious, you're, apparently, all distraught over a simple concept. As noted, I have no idea what concept you even mean. LOL! You go on and on and on and on and on and on just to argue. It is amazing to watch. > Either that or you're just trolling... doesn't really matter which. Just imagine if you were serious with this... but I cannot imagine you are THAT lost. I am enjoying knowing that one or more of your family members is watching you in your full glory. :) ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d567b73b-3134-4887-ac3e-f7ffb974366b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451664 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:13:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 8:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:44:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/17/18 7:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>> LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and > >>>>> the table or tables that it contains. > >>>> > >>>> If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full > >>>> range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? > >>> > >>> If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". > >>> IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. > >> > >> LOL! Oh the irony. > > > > What irony? You're the one going on an on about something that only you > > are having trouble grasping. > > If you are not caught up on some exact definition of the word "table" What definition, in computing, doesn't use the concept of rows and columns with regards to formatting when the term "table" is used (there actually is one but it's so uncommon you probably won't be able to describe it)? > you can use in any context, even though it has somewhat different > meanings in different contexts, But it doesn't... unless you are talking about furniture. You're conflating features that apps provide tables with the definition of the term. An HTML table is no less a table because it lacks a feature that an Excel table has. This is obvious to everyone but you. (snip childish idiocy)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm72brF1v2qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451669 |
On 5/17/18 8:55 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:13:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 8:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:44:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/17/18 7:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:20:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 5/17/18 4:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> LOL! There is very clear distinction between the sheet and >>>>>>> the table or tables that it contains. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a sheet contains one and only one table, and the table takes the full >>>>>> range of the sheet, what do you see as the difference? >>>>> >>>>> If there is a difference, or not, it doesn't change the definition of "table". >>>>> IMO you're making way more out of this than is necessary. >>>> >>>> LOL! Oh the irony. >>> >>> What irony? You're the one going on an on about something that only you >>> are having trouble grasping. >> >> If you are not caught up on some exact definition of the word "table" > > What definition, in computing, doesn't use the concept of rows and > columns with regards to formatting when the term "table" is used > (there actually is one but it's so uncommon you probably won't be > able to describe it)? See: you prove my point... though I think you would have to play semantic games to get your definition there to fit an array of, say, numbers in a script. :) Seriously, though, what is your point? Are you disagreeing with something someone said? If so, what? You go on and on and on and on and on and on and never really get to any point other than how you are so amazingly right about something and I, in your mind, am wrong. I have no idea what you even think I am wrong about. I bet you do not either. >> you can use in any context, even though it has somewhat different >> meanings in different contexts, > > But it doesn't... unless you are talking about furniture. You're > conflating features that apps provide tables with the definition > of the term. An HTML table is no less a table because it lacks > a feature that an Excel table has. This is obvious to everyone > but you. See: you prove my point... and show you have no clue why there was any confusion over the way Numbers uses the term "table" and how owl used it. Whatever. You are just trolling anyway. You have NO point. None. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 22:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66b127fd-48f5-41d6-a217-c1e823d97e9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451561 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:46:00 PM UTC-7, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 5/16/18 4:20 PM, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 5/15/18 6:47 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 5/15/18 5:49 PM, owl wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>>>> In > >>>>>>> short they are made for very different purposes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same purpose. > >>>>> > >>>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very > >>>>> different focus in terms of use cases. > >>>> > >>>> How so? > >>> > >>> Some of the things we have been discussing and have in the past. sc is > >>> made more for scripting and "heftier" number crunching, and to run > >>> "light" on a system. Numbers is made more for ease of use, flexibility > >>> in layout, integration with other media (images and text boxes, as > >>> examples), and for simple formatting. > >>> > >>> As examples of the types of things Numbers is designed for, you can look > >>> at the templates. Was going to list them here but easier to just show a > >>> video. :) > >>> > >>> <https://youtu.be/rT6R_sHnyYM> > >> > >> Charts and DTP stuff. I use gnuplot and scribus for that. > > > > Sure... but sc is not a good tool for it (of course) > > > > sc can pipe data to gnuplot, and gnuplot is an excellent tool > for charts. sc can also export tabular data to be used by scribus. > > > >>> Or the real world example I used with you before: > >>> > >>> <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU> > >> > >> SC can do inter-sheet communication with xdotool or tmux. > > > > Numbers has it built in. > > That and multiple tables per sheet, and > > multiple sheets per file. > > > > And Numbers cannot communicate with external sheets/files, while sc can. > And sc can have multiple tables per sheet, as I have repeatedly shown. > > anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable1 tables.sc 2>/dev/null > Table 1 > 1 2 3 4 5 > 1 100 780 860 940 1020 > 2 1100 1180 5 1340 1420 > 3 4 1580 1660 1740 1820 > 4 1900 1980 2060 2140 2220 > 5 3 2380 2460 2540 2620 > anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable2 tables.sc 2>/dev/null > Table 2 > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 1 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 > 2 53 58 63 17 73 78 83 88 93 98 > 3 30 108 113 118 123 128 133 138 143 148 > 4 18 158 163 168 173 178 183 188 193 198 > 5 203 208 213 218 223 228 233 238 243 248 > anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ > anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ echo eval "@index(table1,5,5)"|sc tables.sc -q 2>/dev/null > 2620 > anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ He inconveniences multiple groups of people who are mere civilians, but that's a conceited fool for you. What Melzzzzz and you care about isn't a factor. I would post to Sandman, AKA Jonas Eklundh honestly but he's a dunce who plays trolling games to implement his lust to call everyone a deceiver. Nobody is being controlled by Apple. -- Eight things to never feed your cat!! http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything https://youtu.be/Z5wo5aE7MUk http://www.5z8.info/warez_w2t4ge_girlsgonewildpart1.wmv Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 07:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l16ofd10r6i3eprf6d5olqmmhu1v3876t3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #451480 |
On Wed, 16 May 2018 01:47:29 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/15/18 5:49 PM, owl wrote: >> ... >>>> In >>>> short they are made for very different purposes. >>>> >>> >>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same purpose. >> >> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >> different focus in terms of use cases. >> >> > >How so? Translating Snittalk: "I am wrong but I am still right."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 07:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ga7ofdprrc3c2uutgvrhb8k28bene9tkpg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #451506 |
Doomsdrzej wrote: > owl wrote: >> >> some thing wrote: >>> >>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >>> different focus in terms of use cases. >> >>How so? > >Translating Snittalk: > >"I am wrong but I am still right." That thing won't even acknowledge that virtual desktops are a very nice feature. It claims that they require "too much configuration". You see, they require that you decide how to organize things on the desktops. In other words, in order to enjoy the benefit of a tool, you must actually use the tool. Sheesh. -- "For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much configuration with too little benefit." - some thing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 09:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkaofd95svq5mcauqhstqekqpjs0vt8mpl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #451510 |
On Wed, 16 May 2018 07:53:20 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Doomsdrzej wrote: > >> owl wrote: >>> >>> some thing wrote: >>>> >>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >>>> different focus in terms of use cases. >>> >>>How so? >> >>Translating Snittalk: >> >>"I am wrong but I am still right." > >That thing won't even acknowledge that virtual desktops are a very >nice feature. It claims that they require "too much configuration". The way that they are set up in Windows and Mac OS then yes, they require a little bit of configuration. However, virtual desktops are included as a feature on just about every GUI in Linux and in the case of Gnome 3, they're integrated in such a way that they enhance multitasking by making it a lot more orderly yet intuitive. I LOVE the way that they are implemented in Gnome 3. >You see, they require that you decide how to organize things on the >desktops. > >In other words, in order to enjoy the benefit of a tool, you must >actually use the tool. > >Sheesh. I have never used the virtual desktops in Windows but only because they are mostly implemented as an afterthought (like everything else in Windows). If I had a hot corner at the top left the same way I do in Gnome, you can be sure that I'd have all of my open applications on their desktops separated by type. It is truly brilliant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm2sm0F47u7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451511 |
On 5/16/18 6:00 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2018 07:53:20 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> Doomsdrzej wrote: >> >>> owl wrote: >>>> >>>> some thing wrote: >>>>> >>>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >>>>> different focus in terms of use cases. >>>> >>>> How so? >>> >>> Translating Snittalk: >>> >>> "I am wrong but I am still right." >> >> That thing won't even acknowledge that virtual desktops are a very >> nice feature. It claims that they require "too much configuration". > > The way that they are set up in Windows and Mac OS then yes, they > require a little bit of configuration. However, virtual desktops are > included as a feature on just about every GUI in Linux and in the case > of Gnome 3, they're integrated in such a way that they enhance > multitasking by making it a lot more orderly yet intuitive. I LOVE the > way that they are implemented in Gnome 3. > >> You see, they require that you decide how to organize things on the >> desktops. >> >> In other words, in order to enjoy the benefit of a tool, you must >> actually use the tool. >> >> Sheesh. > > I have never used the virtual desktops in Windows but only because > they are mostly implemented as an afterthought (like everything else > in Windows). If I had a hot corner at the top left the same way I do > in Gnome, you can be sure that I'd have all of my open applications on > their desktops separated by type. It is truly brilliant. > I would like to see that... I have not used the newest Gnome. Did try it on my VM but it would not run for some reason. Might try it again, either there or on real hardware (though my "play" hardware is ancient and maybe it will not run well there, either). The best integration I have seen is on macOS where the full screen feature is tied to the virtual desktop system -- hit one button to go full screen and you also are on a new workspace. For most people they use this one program and when they want to move to something else they leave full screen -- no harm in that and they do not even think in terms of virtual workspaces. For others, though, they can hit a hot key or go to a hot corner or hit a widget on the dock and get back to their other applications on other spaces. You can also click and hold the same "full screen" button to go half screen... and it will give you a list of other windows you can select for your other "split screen" usage. I use this a fair amount, though I admit I do not see many others using split screen (I also have far less face-to-face interaction with other users than I used to). Tied to this feature, or at least working in concert with it, is the ability to have tabs in almost any program. When Apple first introduced this I did not really understand the value -- now I rely on it heavily. Instead of having nine different word processor windows open, for example, I have one open with six tabs and another open, on another work space, with three. Two windows on two work spaces to handle and organize nine different files. In Preview I have three files open... but all in one window with tabs (currently hidden). And of course I have too many tabs open in my browser... a common affliction of many. :) Would love to see you make a video on how you use the GNOME 3 system... maybe I will make one on how I use the macOS one. Right now I have my two physical screens, even with two virtual work spaces. That is not uncommon for me (often I have more, sometimes I have fewer). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm2s1fF42m6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451510 |
On 5/16/18 5:53 AM, chrisv wrote: > Doomsdrzej wrote: > >> owl wrote: >>> >>> some thing wrote: >>>> >>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >>>> different focus in terms of use cases. >>> >>> How so? >> >> Translating Snittalk: >> >> "I am wrong but I am still right." > > That thing won't even acknowledge that virtual desktops are a very > nice feature. How odd. Why not let this "thing" speak for himself? Here, I will speak for myself... I think virtual desktops are a great feature, though one that will not be used by most (which is fine). > It claims that they require "too much configuration". For some people this is true, esp. when they are not well integrated with the system (say when there is the option to move windows to a different desktop but no pager available by default). Even when they are well integrated many will not want to use them. That is fine, and does not hurt the value for those who do want to use them. There was a discussion in COLA about them at one point where people foolishly denied that they required ANY configuration, as if the windows automatically jumped to the work space the user would want with NO action of the use. That was just weird... maybe you are referring to that. Or maybe you just want attention. > You see, they require that you decide how to organize things on the > desktops. They decided not just how you want things to be organized but that you actively move them around AND that you keep some level of mental mapping. This is more than many non-techies care to do, though of course the feature is a benefit to many. > In other words, in order to enjoy the benefit of a tool, you must > actually use the tool. Why is that an issue for you? Or are you still talking for others, twisting their words and making things up merely to troll? > Sheesh. Sheesh in deed! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web