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 7 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 27 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6bi7Fs3fnU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451627 |
On 5/17/18 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:52:45 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 10:44 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:57:58 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Michael Glasser, diseased cockroach of Prescott, Arizona babbled: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is similar to how you failed to understand how a text editor and a >>>>>> word processor are not the same... >>>> >>>> LOL What a liar. >>> >>> LOL, yeah I know. I'd have commented but the statement was too >>> ridiculous on its own. >>> >> Owl claimed vim was a word processor. It is not. > > According to which definition? > > "A word processor, or word processing program, does exactly what the > name implies. It processes words. It also processes paragraphs, pages, > and entire papers. Some examples of word processing programs include > Microsoft Word, WordPerfect (Windows only), AppleWorks (Mac only), and > OpenOffice.org. > > The first word processors were basically computerized typewriters, which > did little more than place characters on a screen, which could then be > printed by a printer." > > <https://techterms.com/definition/wordprocessor> > > That last paragraph throws an obvious wrench into your argument. > >> He insisted he was right. > > Given the above definition I fail to see how he was "wrong" > Given your penchant for pedantic semantic games I do not doubt you have such a failure. This forum, however, is not a place to help you cope with such shortcomings (and I have no interest in doing so). -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b9a83guag.3uo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451627 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:52:45 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 10:44 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >> > On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:57:58 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>> Michael Glasser, diseased cockroach of Prescott, Arizona babbled: >> >>>> >> >>>> This is similar to how you failed to understand how a text editor and a >> >>>> word processor are not the same... >> >> >> >> LOL What a liar. >> > >> > LOL, yeah I know. I'd have commented but the statement was too >> > ridiculous on its own. >> > >> Owl claimed vim was a word processor. It is not. > > According to which definition? > > "A word processor, or word processing program, does exactly what the > name implies. It processes words. It also processes paragraphs, pages, > and entire papers. Some examples of word processing programs include > Microsoft Word, WordPerfect (Windows only), AppleWorks (Mac only), and > OpenOffice.org. > > The first word processors were basically computerized typewriters, which > did little more than place characters on a screen, which could then be > printed by a printer." > > <https://techterms.com/definition/wordprocessor> > > That last paragraph throws an obvious wrench into your argument. > >> He insisted he was right. > > Given the above definition I fail to see how he was "wrong" I used to have a Brother word processor machine back in the 80's. Vim does so much more than that thing that it's laughable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6endFsov9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451636 |
On 5/17/18 3:29 PM, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 11:52:45 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/17/18 10:44 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:57:58 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Michael Glasser, diseased cockroach of Prescott, Arizona babbled: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is similar to how you failed to understand how a text editor and a >>>>>>> word processor are not the same... >>>>> >>>>> LOL What a liar. >>>> >>>> LOL, yeah I know. I'd have commented but the statement was too >>>> ridiculous on its own. >>>> >>> Owl claimed vim was a word processor. It is not. >> >> According to which definition? >> >> "A word processor, or word processing program, does exactly what the >> name implies. It processes words. It also processes paragraphs, pages, >> and entire papers. Some examples of word processing programs include >> Microsoft Word, WordPerfect (Windows only), AppleWorks (Mac only), and >> OpenOffice.org. >> >> The first word processors were basically computerized typewriters, which >> did little more than place characters on a screen, which could then be >> printed by a printer." >> >> <https://techterms.com/definition/wordprocessor> >> >> That last paragraph throws an obvious wrench into your argument. >> >>> He insisted he was right. >> >> Given the above definition I fail to see how he was "wrong" > > I used to have a Brother word processor machine back in the 80's. > Vim does so much more than that thing that it's laughable. > Sure. So are you arguing that vim is a word processor? LOL! -- 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 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be983fc1-c8a6-4a8e-bd6d-cf915f79d4b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451591 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" > was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted and tell me you have confidence in his argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6aviFruqjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451617 |
On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. > > And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's > definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted > and tell me you have confidence in his argument. > Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. Sigh. The two of you get caught up in your own games so much I do not even know if you know you are playing them. Keep in mind, this was all a side issue from Owl trying to show that sc has a feature similar to the table feature of Numbers. In terms of the table "floating" on a canvas that lacks a spreadsheet-like grid, nope, it does not. That was (and is) my point. It is certainly correct (or has yet to be shown to be otherwise). -- 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 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10227c08-fccc-4bb3-aa9c-fb0c76aa4bfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451629 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 3:36:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > > > >> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" > >> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. > > > > And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's > > definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted > > and tell me you have confidence in his argument. > > > > Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. Why would I need to keep in mind something I didn't address? I'm merely pointing out how you regularly 'speak' for "others". That you may have done so for Apple wouldn't be surprising in the least. Worse, you are often "wrong" when you do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6eppFsov9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451637 |
On 5/17/18 3:30 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 3:36:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>> >>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >>> >>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >> >> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > > Why would I need to keep in mind something I didn't address? With all your pedantic semantic games I would think you know the meaning of the word "and"! LOL! ... <snipped your fantasies of me... really, seek help for that!> -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 23:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zcv9093g.guou4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451629 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> >>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >> >> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >> > > Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). > Sigh. The two of you get caught up in your own games so much I do not > even know if you know you are playing them. > > Keep in mind, this was all a side issue from Owl trying to show that sc > has a feature similar to the table feature of Numbers. In terms of the > table "floating" on a canvas that lacks a spreadsheet-like grid, nope, > it does not. > I have shown multiple sc windows floating on the desktop in communication with each other. Same thing (only better).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6jqcFto20U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451644 |
On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>> >>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >>> >>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >> >> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > > You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" > were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. Carroll spoke of this when he talked about Numbers and layout and the like. While he is playing some games, he actually seems to get the pros and cons of sc and Excel and Numbers reasonably well. I am not sure you do, but also quite certain I am OK with not knowing how well you get it. :) >> Sigh. The two of you get caught up in your own games so much I do not >> even know if you know you are playing them. >> >> Keep in mind, this was all a side issue from Owl trying to show that sc >> has a feature similar to the table feature of Numbers. In terms of the >> table "floating" on a canvas that lacks a spreadsheet-like grid, nope, >> it does not. > > I have shown multiple sc windows floating on the desktop in communication > with each other. Same thing (only better). See: as noted you do not really get it. And that is OK. I have no issue with that and do not feel the need to convince you. I have shown you some videos, explained it, etc. and you still do not really see it. 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sz9b803ga.guoa4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451648 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >>>> >>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >>> >>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. >> >> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" >> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). > > At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and > I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. > > This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I > spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers > sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content > not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. > That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1707fc6f-8ae6-4f56-bbca-26625b066d7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451650 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" > >>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. > >>>> > >>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's > >>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted > >>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. > >>> > >>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > >> > >> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" > >> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). > > > > At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and > > I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. > > > > This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I > > spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers > > sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content > > not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. > > > > That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a > sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" > are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> > https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq > > It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation > can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" > was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed > decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their presentation look nice easily they're all for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 01:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <909a8803ag.aio43@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451651 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >> >>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >> >>>> >> >>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >> >>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >> >>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >> >>> >> >>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. >> >> >> >> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" >> >> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). >> > >> > At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and >> > I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. >> > >> > This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I >> > spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers >> > sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content >> > not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. >> > >> >> That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a >> sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" >> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." > > The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary > to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. > Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, > that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: > > <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> > >> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq >> >> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation >> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" >> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed >> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. > > Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... > for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. > This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't > know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their > presentation look nice easily they're all for it. I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them what they have traditionally been called: "sheets."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6omcF2r6U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451652 |
On 5/17/18 6:17 PM, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>>>>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >>>>>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >>>>>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. >>>>> >>>>> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" >>>>> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). >>>> >>>> At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and >>>> I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. >>>> >>>> This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I >>>> spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers >>>> sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content >>>> not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. >>>> >>> >>> That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a >>> sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" >>> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." >> >> The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary >> to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. >> Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, >> that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: >> >> <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> >> >>> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq >>> >>> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation >>> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" >>> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed >>> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. >> >> Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... >> for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. >> This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't >> know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their >> presentation look nice easily they're all for it. > > I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move > sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them > what they have traditionally been called: "sheets." > The "canvas" in Numbers is called a "sheet". Look at this video I made for you before: <https://youtu.be/Y8KLSAWrPKY> There are three sheets... and you can add a new one by clicking the + sign. This is similar to Excel and many other spreadsheets (but not sc as far as I know). In most spreadsheet programs, though, each sheet is one big table... a grid with the letter / number coordinates. Numbers does not have that in the sheet itself, but it does have it, of course, in its tables. -- 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 | 2018-05-18 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa65e191-26d2-4ad8-9abf-d8a269aacdfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451652 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:17:36 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" > >> >>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's > >> >>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted > >> >>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. > >> >>> > >> >>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > >> >> > >> >> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" > >> >> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). > >> > > >> > At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and > >> > I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. > >> > > >> > This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I > >> > spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers > >> > sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content > >> > not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. > >> > > >> > >> That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a > >> sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" > >> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." > > > > The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary > > to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. > > Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, > > that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: > > > > <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> > > > >> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq > >> > >> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation > >> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" > >> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed > >> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. > > > > Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... > > for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. > > This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't > > know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their > > presentation look nice easily they're all for it. > > I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move > sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them > what they have traditionally been called: "sheets." I doubt their target market knows what they've traditionally been called, nor would they care that Apple has broken from tradition. It's not like Numbers has a market share that doesn't reflect this, they can't even see it anymore, they have to give it away. This is indicative of how much the target market cares about a crossover app that has some(relative to 'pro' apps) spreadsheet capabilities. Given the target market, I think it's a good app, it's just not a pro level spreadsheet app. We all know this. Snit is trying to push the idea that he believes, when you showed that Numbers man page, it meant you *weren't* trolling him. But he's not trying to play 'victim' or anything <eyeroll>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm8p78Fdq24U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451704 |
On 5/18/18 11:57 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move >> sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them >> what they have traditionally been called: "sheets." > > I doubt their target market knows what they've traditionally been > called, nor would they care that Apple has broken from tradition. Add to that the spreadsheet itself breaks from the traditional format. As they do so they will end up using terms in a slightly different way, much as sc and Excel use the term "tables" a bit differently. > It's > not like Numbers has a market share that doesn't reflect this, they > can't even see it anymore, they have to give it away. And sc and Linux in general are given away. Not sure what that has to do with this. > This is indicative > of how much the target market cares about a crossover app that has > some(relative to 'pro' apps) spreadsheet capabilities. Given the target > market, I think it's a good app, it's just not a pro level spreadsheet app. Sure. > We all know this. Snit is trying to push the idea that he believes, when > you showed that Numbers man page, it meant you *weren't* trolling > him. When do you think I denied he (or you) were trolling? > But he's not trying to play 'victim' or anything <eyeroll>. I cannot understand your victim mentality worldview... or at least cannot empathize with it. Just completely foreign to my way of thinking. -- 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 | 2018-05-18 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2969b639-84af-48f2-a5c9-b44ce6597ced@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451706 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 5/18/18 11:57 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >> I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move > >> sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them > >> what they have traditionally been called: "sheets." > > > > I doubt their target market knows what they've traditionally been > > called, nor would they care that Apple has broken from tradition. > > Add to that the spreadsheet itself breaks from the traditional format. > As they do so they will end up using terms in a slightly different way, > much as sc and Excel use the term "tables" a bit differently. > > > It's > > not like Numbers has a market share that doesn't reflect this, they > > can't even see it anymore, they have to give it away. > > And sc and Linux in general are given away. Not sure what that has to do > with this. > > > This is indicative > > of how much the target market cares about a crossover app that has > > some(relative to 'pro' apps) spreadsheet capabilities. Given the target > > market, I think it's a good app, it's just not a pro level spreadsheet app. > > Sure. > > > We all know this. Snit is trying to push the idea that he believes, when > > you showed that Numbers man page, it meant you *weren't* trolling > > him. > > When do you think I denied he (or you) were trolling? > > > But he's not trying to play 'victim' or anything <eyeroll>. > > I cannot understand your victim mentality worldview... or at least > cannot empathize with it. Just completely foreign to my way of thinking. > > > -- > 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> A persistent, relentless, posting itch, while suffering from an empty mind - basically gunky snake lawyers, and satisfactorily-waxed fish, hung from the ceiling for his own individual desires. Don't get too bigheaded, Snit, sometimes "advocates" are just that. All that matters is that Snit gets to inflict his automated call and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Steve Carroll is an innocent patsy on the other end of the phone is what gets him off. No-one gets it, I barely understand it. Usenet is an uncontrollable institution based on an honor system. That is the problem 'today' and less experienced instructors don't know what they are doing; people from pre-tech generations (~40 or so) should know better than to fall for the New World agenda. Who are you even talking to? -- Get Rich Slow https://youtu.be/r7wys2JvBD0 Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 15:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm931eFfra7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451713 |
On 5/18/18 2:45 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 5/18/18 11:57 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>> I don't have anything against the canvas. It would be nice to move >>>> sheets around like that in other spreadsheet apps. But call them >>>> what they have traditionally been called: "sheets." >>> >>> I doubt their target market knows what they've traditionally been >>> called, nor would they care that Apple has broken from tradition. >> >> Add to that the spreadsheet itself breaks from the traditional format. >> As they do so they will end up using terms in a slightly different way, >> much as sc and Excel use the term "tables" a bit differently. >> >>> It's >>> not like Numbers has a market share that doesn't reflect this, they >>> can't even see it anymore, they have to give it away. >> >> And sc and Linux in general are given away. Not sure what that has to do >> with this. >> >>> This is indicative >>> of how much the target market cares about a crossover app that has >>> some(relative to 'pro' apps) spreadsheet capabilities. Given the target >>> market, I think it's a good app, it's just not a pro level spreadsheet app. >> >> Sure. >> >>> We all know this. Snit is trying to push the idea that he believes, when >>> you showed that Numbers man page, it meant you *weren't* trolling >>> him. >> >> When do you think I denied he (or you) were trolling? >> >>> But he's not trying to play 'victim' or anything <eyeroll>. >> >> I cannot understand your victim mentality worldview... or at least >> cannot empathize with it. Just completely foreign to my way of thinking. >> >> >> -- >> 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> > > > > A persistent, relentless, posting itch, while suffering from an empty mind - basically gunky snake lawyers, and satisfactorily-waxed fish, hung from the ceiling for his own individual desires. > > Don't get too bigheaded, Snit, sometimes "advocates" are just that. What? > All that matters is that Snit gets to inflict his automated call and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Steve Carroll is an innocent patsy on the other end of the phone is what gets him off. No-one gets it, I barely understand it. Usenet is an uncontrollable institution based on an honor system. That is the problem 'today' and less experienced instructors don't know what they are doing; people from pre-tech generations (~40 or so) should know better than to fall for the New World agenda. Even when you write your bot crap you are playing victim. You cannot see the world any other way. > Who are you even talking to? Nobody of consequence or value. -- 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 | 2018-05-17 18:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6ogkF2r6U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451651 |
On 5/17/18 6:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" >>>>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's >>>>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted >>>>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. >>>>> >>>>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. >>>> >>>> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" >>>> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). >>> >>> At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and >>> I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. >>> >>> This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I >>> spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers >>> sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content >>> not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. >> >> That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a >> sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" >> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." > > The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary > to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. The "canvas" in Excel or sc is the whole sheet... but neither has a concept really like what Numbers has. > Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, > that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: > > <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> Sure... that was pretty much my point at the start of this silliness: Numbers is a very different type of spreadsheet than sc or Excel. >> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq >> >> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation >> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" >> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed >> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. > > Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... > for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. > This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't > know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their > presentation look nice easily they're all for it. Seems, here, like you are pretty much backing what I said. When you are not responding to me you often do -- shows you do not really have any significant disagreement with me but argue just to argue. -- 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 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c84f0e5-13a8-4d9b-801a-7fd2d221e57c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451656 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:27:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 6:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:39:21 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 5/17/18 4:14 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 5/17/18 12:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" > >>>>>>> was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And the obvious question there is, was he actually using Apple's > >>>>>> definition? Look at how he just munged the man page he quoted > >>>>>> and tell me you have confidence in his argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also keep in mind I never said what Owl claimed I did. > >>>> > >>>> You kept saying that SC tables were not "tables" because "tables" > >>>> were what Numbers calls them (Numbers calls spreadsheets "tables"). > >>> > >>> At first I called the whole worksheet the table. You said otherwise and > >>> I did research that backed your claim. I acknowledged the error. > >>> > >>> This, of course, does not mean that sc has the type of tables which I > >>> spoke of, ones which are "free floating" in a canvas (of the Numbers > >>> sheet). This allows for tables to not line up and to have other content > >>> not in any table... to just "free float" on a canvas. > >> > >> That's the thing. This "canvas" that Numbers calls a "sheet" is not a > >> sheet in the traditional sense. The things that Numbers calls "tables" > >> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." > > > > The "canvas", which I have not talked about in this thread (contrary > > to the BS Snit just told) is the way Apple deals with presentation. > > The "canvas" in Excel or sc is the whole sheet... but neither has a > concept really like what Numbers has. I don't believe sc refers to it as a "canvas" (though, Excel might). But you said I "spoke of this" (meaning: "a canvas") in regards to "Numbers": "Carroll spoke of this when he talked about Numbers and layout and the like" I never spoke about it, that's just a totally false statement. > > Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, > > that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: > > > > <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> > > Sure... that was pretty much my point at the start of this silliness: > Numbers is a very different type of spreadsheet than sc or Excel. And it's not a point I ever disagreed with, in fact, I pointed it out earlier, as well. That I agree on this obvious point doesn't mean you didn't go making some false and/or inaccurate statements... 'cuz you did... and you're claiming I'm playing 'semantic games' because I called you out on them. > >> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq > >> > >> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation > >> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" > >> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed > >> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. > > > > Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... > > for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. > > This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't > > know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their > > presentation look nice easily they're all for it. > > Seems, here, like you are pretty much backing what I said. When you are > not responding to me you often do -- shows you do not really have any > significant disagreement with me but argue just to argue. Total bull. I'm merely correcting your false and/or inaccurate statements, those I have a disagreement with. Your stance is that if I don't agree with 100% of what you're writing I'm 'out to get you' or I'm 'playing games'. You read into things often and your doing so gets you into trouble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6t8vF10juU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451659 |
On 5/17/18 7:21 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> Numbers is more geared towards that than it is as a spreadsheet, >>> that's the way it was created and that's how it's marketed: >>> >>> <https://www.apple.com/numbers/> >> >> Sure... that was pretty much my point at the start of this silliness: >> Numbers is a very different type of spreadsheet than sc or Excel. > > And it's not a point I ever disagreed with, in fact, I pointed it > out earlier, as well. So you are in basic agreement with me even as you argue just to argue. What a shock. > That I agree on this obvious point doesn't > mean you didn't go making some false and/or inaccurate > statements... 'cuz you did... and you're claiming I'm playing > 'semantic games' because I called you out on them. Interesting how you say this point that Owl missed is "obvious" then go back to your game of blaming me for your word games and pretzel logic. Again: NOT interested and not playing. You are having a VERY hard time with that. Oh well. >>>> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq >>>> >>>> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation >>>> can be though of as a table. I'm not arguing that the term "sheet" >>>> was ever a good word to use to begin with, but that bridge was crossed >>>> decades ago, and Apple should follow tradition here. >>> >>> Depends on who they're marketing it to... for accountants, yeah... >>> for marketing types... they care much more that's it's 'poster pretty'. >>> This is undoubtedly true for the "average" user, as well, who doesn't >>> know squat about a spreadsheet app but if they can make their >>> presentation look nice easily they're all for it. >> >> Seems, here, like you are pretty much backing what I said. When you are >> not responding to me you often do -- shows you do not really have any >> significant disagreement with me but argue just to argue. > > Total bull. Yet above you did just that. LOL! See: you argue JUST to argue. You have no point... > I'm merely correcting your false and/or inaccurate statements, > those I have a disagreement with. Your stance is that if I don't agree with > 100% of what you're writing I'm 'out to get you' or I'm 'playing games'. > You read into things often and your doing so gets you into trouble. That is not my stance. But, hey, feel free to just keep making things up... it is not like I can stop you or expect better of you! -- 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 7 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web