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 23 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 27 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87719a54-d7e2-4007-8480-25d46227e4dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451865 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 11:23:56 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 5/21/18 5:16 AM, chrisv wrote: > > > Melzzzzz wrote: > > > > > >> some thing wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Easy to do but your wording is absurd. > > >> > > >> Why do you reply to script? > > > > > > OMG, what a fscking idiot, that thing is. > > > > > Ah, insults. How creative! > > But you are an idiot... people have kf'd your puppets/shills. > What you really need is one that keeps switching names, then > they'd have a shot at being almost as annoying as you. I think the point is far from just to get innocent posters to listen to him. The point is likely to piss me off for trolling outside groups he knows I frequent. So, yeah, I buy into my own fancy, fully knowing it's fake, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it. Too much glue for you, gluehead. I am not irate, in fact I'm in stitches because Owl's trolling is so clear. He purposefully didn't list all the criteria that he would soon insist are needed... and we all know why, Owl is such a moron. At least he has his own socks rushing to his rescue. You installed and took it for a test drive and your "professional opinions" lead you to that conclusion, proving what? I have worked in the computer business for nearly 20 years. I've served Fortune 500 businesses selling to the pharmaceutical industry and police forces. Never were we ever directed to not load any OS the customer wanted. We sold AIXL, Lisa, Blackberry, and so on with Microsoft OSs. Richard Stallman is a false advocate's biggest fear. You guys can only rationalize from the viewpoint of a psychopath. -- Eight things to never feed your dog! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4 http://www.5z8.info/freeanimalporn.com-start-download_s9j7do_dogporn http://www.5z8.info/hackwebcam_e9z2tw_friendster-of-sex Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm98jqFgu8bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451714 |
On 5/18/18 3:37 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/18/18 1:03 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/18/18 12:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/17/18 9:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:11:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 5/17/18 8:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:37:14 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/17/18 8:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Owl and I disagree on if Numbers and sc are the same type of >>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Really?! After *all* he's written you think he believes sc is the >>>>>>>>> "same type of program" as Numbers? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, given how he said they were made for the same purposes, I >>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>> he did mean it. Sure. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same >>>>>>>> purpose. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think he was lying? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think he was trying to compare sc to Numbers and put Numbers >>>>>>> in a negative light. He knows full well they are made for a >>>>>>> completely >>>>>>> different audience; the time they were each written underscores that >>>>>>> fact all by itself. He trolled and you swallowed hook, line and >>>>>>> sinker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, so you think he did not mean what he said >>>>> >>>>> I just stated what I "think". >>>> >>>>>> but you will not say he was lying. You will however say he was >>>>>> trolling. >>>>> >>>>> He was obviously trolling. Your idiocy isn't that interesting. More >>>>> interesting >>>>> would be to look at Numbers' "Document compatibility with Microsoft >>>>> Office": >>>> >>>> Good to see you admit he is trolling. >>> >>> Quit playing 'victim'. for once in your life, you know full well >>> what that >>> man page was for. >> >> Again you with your victim mentality world view. I cannot understand I >> even COULD be a victim of his juvenile humor. Can you explain how you >> go from Owl tying his own ego to Linux and sc, and then showing his >> insecurity by posting poor humor about other products, could in ANY >> way make me a victim? > > Carroll refused to answer. Carroll then responded asking me to "counter-troll". He cannot stand that I refuse to sink to his level. Oy! >> I do not see it. I cannot understand how you even make that jump. I >> get that you do it... and you do it over and over... so on that level >> I "get" it, but overall your victim mentality world view is so foreign >> to my way of thinking I cannot "connect" to it. > > Meanwhile Carroll cannot see the world in any other way. > >> I predict you will NEVER give a reasoned response to this, and will >> even work to turn things around and blame me. Your victim world view >> is so extreme you blame EVERYTHING wrong in your life on me... >> including your divorce. Remember when you used to make up bizarre >> stories about me contacting your wife, and you whined how she was >> angry at things posted to Usenet about your girlfriend or whatever. >> All my fault -- clearly I "forced" you to act in such immoral ways. > > I was right: Carroll refused to answer. And, yes, he tried to turn > things around and talk about MY life... trying to get more information > about it. His whole life is spent trying to get revenge against me for > an imagined wrong. How pathetic. > >> Just mind boggling to me. >> >>>> Wonder if you will admit you are. >>> >>> Calling out your BS is not trolling. >> >> That is a "no". Of course you will not. But that does not mean you are >> not... you clearly are. >> >> Heck, you have spent dozens of posts claiming you are "right" and I am >> "wrong" about something you cannot even state. I sincerely do not >> think you even know... you just are looking for attention (which I >> give you) and trolling. Heck, you clearly had no idea Owl had claimed >> sc and Numbers were "made for the same purpose". When you were faced >> with that you realized you actually WERE agreeing with me (they they >> are not) and tossed him under the bus, saying you did not think even >> he believed his own words (he was thus lying) but then you gave him >> the "out" of saying his lie was merely "trolling" (interesting how you >> show you excuse lying as long as you are trolling). > > Carroll does not even suggest what he thought he was right about me and > me wrong. He *was* just trolling. > > And he has been busted doing so again... running from tech topics to try > to get information about my life and just flat out trolling. > > Amazing how predictable he is. > > -- 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 | 2018-05-19 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efbbae47-2f77-4cc8-b6ff-33371929e3af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451720 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 6:14:55 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > Carroll then responded asking me to "counter-troll". So he trolled you a bit, big f*cking deal. Why be a whiny bitch about it? Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and troll him back like you used to. I don't remember you being *this* whiny! Surely you can find something on that LO comparison page other than image rotation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fmb50mFteejU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451720 |
On 5/18/18 5:14 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/18/18 3:37 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/18/18 1:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/18/18 12:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/18 9:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:11:03 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/17/18 8:53 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:37:14 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/17/18 8:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> Owl and I disagree on if Numbers and sc are the same type of >>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Really?! After *all* he's written you think he believes sc is the >>>>>>>>>> "same type of program" as Numbers? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, given how he said they were made for the same purposes, I >>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>> he did mean it. Sure. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same >>>>>>>>> purpose. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you think he was lying? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think he was trying to compare sc to Numbers and put Numbers >>>>>>>> in a negative light. He knows full well they are made for a >>>>>>>> completely >>>>>>>> different audience; the time they were each written underscores >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> fact all by itself. He trolled and you swallowed hook, line and >>>>>>>> sinker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, so you think he did not mean what he said >>>>>> >>>>>> I just stated what I "think". >>>>> >>>>>>> but you will not say he was lying. You will however say he was >>>>>>> trolling. >>>>>> >>>>>> He was obviously trolling. Your idiocy isn't that interesting. >>>>>> More interesting >>>>>> would be to look at Numbers' "Document compatibility with >>>>>> Microsoft Office": >>>>> >>>>> Good to see you admit he is trolling. >>>> >>>> Quit playing 'victim'. for once in your life, you know full well >>>> what that >>>> man page was for. >>> >>> Again you with your victim mentality world view. I cannot understand >>> I even COULD be a victim of his juvenile humor. Can you explain how >>> you go from Owl tying his own ego to Linux and sc, and then showing >>> his insecurity by posting poor humor about other products, could in >>> ANY way make me a victim? >> >> Carroll refused to answer. > > Carroll then responded asking me to "counter-troll". He cannot stand > that I refuse to sink to his level. Oy! > >>> I do not see it. I cannot understand how you even make that jump. I >>> get that you do it... and you do it over and over... so on that level >>> I "get" it, but overall your victim mentality world view is so >>> foreign to my way of thinking I cannot "connect" to it. >> >> Meanwhile Carroll cannot see the world in any other way. >> >>> I predict you will NEVER give a reasoned response to this, and will >>> even work to turn things around and blame me. Your victim world view >>> is so extreme you blame EVERYTHING wrong in your life on me... >>> including your divorce. Remember when you used to make up bizarre >>> stories about me contacting your wife, and you whined how she was >>> angry at things posted to Usenet about your girlfriend or whatever. >>> All my fault -- clearly I "forced" you to act in such immoral ways. >> >> I was right: Carroll refused to answer. And, yes, he tried to turn >> things around and talk about MY life... trying to get more information >> about it. His whole life is spent trying to get revenge against me for >> an imagined wrong. How pathetic. >> >>> Just mind boggling to me. >>> >>>>> Wonder if you will admit you are. >>>> >>>> Calling out your BS is not trolling. >>> >>> That is a "no". Of course you will not. But that does not mean you >>> are not... you clearly are. >>> >>> Heck, you have spent dozens of posts claiming you are "right" and I >>> am "wrong" about something you cannot even state. I sincerely do not >>> think you even know... you just are looking for attention (which I >>> give you) and trolling. Heck, you clearly had no idea Owl had claimed >>> sc and Numbers were "made for the same purpose". When you were faced >>> with that you realized you actually WERE agreeing with me (they they >>> are not) and tossed him under the bus, saying you did not think even >>> he believed his own words (he was thus lying) but then you gave him >>> the "out" of saying his lie was merely "trolling" (interesting how >>> you show you excuse lying as long as you are trolling). >> >> Carroll does not even suggest what he thought he was right about me >> and me wrong. He *was* just trolling. >> >> And he has been busted doing so again... running from tech topics to >> try to get information about my life and just flat out trolling. >> >> Amazing how predictable he is. >> >> > > Carroll responded, played victim as always, and making up stories about me as he AGAIN defended comments of Owl's even Carroll admits were not in any way true. -- 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 18:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6oadF2r6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451650 |
On 5/17/18 5:39 PM, 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. As I keep noting, and Owl disagree with but you and he keep backing, Numbers is a very different type of spreadsheet. It is not a "traditional" one. Sure. > The things that Numbers calls "tables" > are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." > > https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq In the two you show, and Numbers, and Excel, the sheets are all the in-file tabs. > It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation > can be though of as a table. Sure. > 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. I have no issue with them making a different kind of spreadsheet that has pros and cons compared to Excel. I think that is a better choice than trying to to out-Excel Excel. They did the same thing with Pages. It is quite different than Word. And Keynote is quite different than PowerPoint. To be fair neither is AS different as Numbers is from Excel, but I have no issue with 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6oc9F2r6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451654 |
On 5/17/18 6:24 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 5:39 PM, 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. > > As I keep noting, and Owl disagree with but you and he keep backing, > Numbers is a very different type of spreadsheet. It is not a > "traditional" one. Sure. Sorry, responded to this as if you were Carroll. I am doing home projects, crafting, and responding to you guys right now... still, my mistake. >> The things that Numbers calls "tables" >> are actually what every other spreadsheet program calls "sheets." >> >> https://imgur.com/a/nuuYkdq > > In the two you show, and Numbers, and Excel, the sheets are all the > in-file tabs. > >> It doesn't really matter though, because a any row/column presentation >> can be though of as a table. > > Sure. > >> 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. > > I have no issue with them making a different kind of spreadsheet that > has pros and cons compared to Excel. I think that is a better choice > than trying to to out-Excel Excel. > > They did the same thing with Pages. It is quite different than Word. And > Keynote is quite different than PowerPoint. To be fair neither is AS > different as Numbers is from Excel, but I have no issue with 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 | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea26e39f-9cce-4cfe-916d-04cd241d6d73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451578 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:16:30 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Strange that a spreadsheet app has no concept of a spreadsheet. That pretty much puts things into perspective ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm5nupFnp5kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451583 |
On 5/17/18 8:48 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:16:30 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Strange that a spreadsheet app has no concept of a spreadsheet. > > That pretty much puts things into perspective ;) It puts it into perspective of how different of spreadsheet tools they are, sure. Which was what I was noting and you and owl were disagreeing with. But whatever... this is all a semantic battle. What matters, if anything here does, is that you two finally are showing understanding of how different the tools are. Not sure you really "get" Numbers, but that is OK. Heck, I admit it took me some time to also... I was used to things more like sc myself (Excel, AppleWorks on the Mac, AppleWorks on the IIe, Visicalc, Lotus 1-2-3, vc, etc.). Not that they are all the same, and not that they even used terms all the same, but they were more similar in having one large grid with all data on that grid and no "canvas" outside the grid. -- 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 09:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73586afb-e8a5-4694-9060-48341263de78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451576 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:14:47 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/17/18 6:01 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:45:58 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 5/16/18 4:20 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 5/15/18 6:47 PM, owl wrote: > >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 5/15/18 5:49 PM, owl wrote: > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>> short they are made for very different purposes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same purpose. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very > >>>>>>> different focus in terms of use cases. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How so? > >>>>> > >>>>> Some of the things we have been discussing and have in the past. sc is > >>>>> made more for scripting and "heftier" number crunching, and to run > >>>>> "light" on a system. Numbers is made more for ease of use, flexibility > >>>>> in layout, integration with other media (images and text boxes, as > >>>>> examples), and for simple formatting. > >>>>> > >>>>> As examples of the types of things Numbers is designed for, you can look > >>>>> at the templates. Was going to list them here but easier to just show a > >>>>> video. :) > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://youtu.be/rT6R_sHnyYM> > >>>> > >>>> Charts and DTP stuff. I use gnuplot and scribus for that. > >>> > >>> Sure... but sc is not a good tool for it (of course) > >>> > >> > >> sc can pipe data to gnuplot, and gnuplot is an excellent tool > >> for charts. sc can also export tabular data to be used by scribus. > >> > >> > >>>>> Or the real world example I used with you before: > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU> > >>>> > >>>> SC can do inter-sheet communication with xdotool or tmux. > >>> > >>> Numbers has it built in. > >>> That and multiple tables per sheet, and > >>> multiple sheets per file. > >>> > >> > >> And Numbers cannot communicate with external sheets/files, while sc can. > >> And sc can have multiple tables per sheet, as I have repeatedly shown. > >> > >> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable1 tables.sc 2>/dev/null > >> Table 1 > >> 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 1 100 780 860 940 1020 > >> 2 1100 1180 5 1340 1420 > >> 3 4 1580 1660 1740 1820 > >> 4 1900 1980 2060 2140 2220 > >> 5 3 2380 2460 2540 2620 > >> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable2 tables.sc 2>/dev/null > >> Table 2 > >> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 1 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 > >> 2 53 58 63 17 73 78 83 88 93 98 > >> 3 30 108 113 118 123 128 133 138 143 148 > >> 4 18 158 163 168 173 178 183 188 193 198 > >> 5 203 208 213 218 223 228 233 238 243 248 > >> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ > >> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ echo eval "@index(table1,5,5)"|sc tables.sc -q 2>/dev/null > >> 2620 > >> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ > > > > In his face. > > > One weakness with Owl's claim, though, is the use of the term "table" is > not consistent even in the sc man page: > > <https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sc&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-RELEASE+and+Ports&format=html> > > OR <https://goo.gl/kPm434> > ----- > The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables much > like a financial spreadsheet. When invoked it presents you with a > table organized as rows and columns of cells. If invoked without a > file argument, the table is initially empty. > ----- > > THE table. Not tables. "The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables" It says "tables", not "THE table". That it *opens* with only one confused only *you*. > Still, technically (even if the documentation is not clear) Not clear to whom? You? You've even seen owl show multiple tables on the worksheet, you've claimed to use vc. How can it not be clear to you? We know how ;) > , Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which > illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are ... incorrect and correct, respectively? > So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was > my point. :) So your point was that Numbers use of the term "table" is incorrect? Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm5o7lFnqpiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451586 |
On 5/17/18 9:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:14:47 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/17/18 6:01 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:45:58 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/18 4:20 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/18 6:47 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/15/18 5:49 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>> short they are made for very different purposes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same purpose. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are both spreadsheets, sure, but they are each made with a very >>>>>>>>> different focus in terms of use cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How so? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of the things we have been discussing and have in the past. sc is >>>>>>> made more for scripting and "heftier" number crunching, and to run >>>>>>> "light" on a system. Numbers is made more for ease of use, flexibility >>>>>>> in layout, integration with other media (images and text boxes, as >>>>>>> examples), and for simple formatting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As examples of the types of things Numbers is designed for, you can look >>>>>>> at the templates. Was going to list them here but easier to just show a >>>>>>> video. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/rT6R_sHnyYM> >>>>>> >>>>>> Charts and DTP stuff. I use gnuplot and scribus for that. >>>>> >>>>> Sure... but sc is not a good tool for it (of course) >>>>> >>>> >>>> sc can pipe data to gnuplot, and gnuplot is an excellent tool >>>> for charts. sc can also export tabular data to be used by scribus. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Or the real world example I used with you before: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU> >>>>>> >>>>>> SC can do inter-sheet communication with xdotool or tmux. >>>>> >>>>> Numbers has it built in. >>>>> That and multiple tables per sheet, and >>>>> multiple sheets per file. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And Numbers cannot communicate with external sheets/files, while sc can. >>>> And sc can have multiple tables per sheet, as I have repeatedly shown. >>>> >>>> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable1 tables.sc 2>/dev/null >>>> Table 1 >>>> 1 2 3 4 5 >>>> 1 100 780 860 940 1020 >>>> 2 1100 1180 5 1340 1420 >>>> 3 4 1580 1660 1740 1820 >>>> 4 1900 1980 2060 2140 2220 >>>> 5 3 2380 2460 2540 2620 >>>> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ sc -WTable2 tables.sc 2>/dev/null >>>> Table 2 >>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>>> 1 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 >>>> 2 53 58 63 17 73 78 83 88 93 98 >>>> 3 30 108 113 118 123 128 133 138 143 148 >>>> 4 18 158 163 168 173 178 183 188 193 198 >>>> 5 203 208 213 218 223 228 233 238 243 248 >>>> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ >>>> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ echo eval "@index(table1,5,5)"|sc tables.sc -q 2>/dev/null >>>> 2620 >>>> anon@lowtide:~/code/sc/multtable$ >>> >>> In his face. >>> >> One weakness with Owl's claim, though, is the use of the term "table" is >> not consistent even in the sc man page: >> >> <https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sc&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-RELEASE+and+Ports&format=html> >> >> OR <https://goo.gl/kPm434> >> ----- >> The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables much >> like a financial spreadsheet. When invoked it presents you with a >> table organized as rows and columns of cells. If invoked without a >> file argument, the table is initially empty. >> ----- >> >> THE table. Not tables. > > "The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables" > > It says "tables", not "THE table". That it *opens* with only one confused > only *you*. > >> Still, technically (even if the documentation is not clear) > > Not clear to whom? You? You've even seen owl show multiple > tables on the worksheet, you've claimed to use vc. How can it > not be clear to you? We know how ;) > >> , Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which >> illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are > > .... incorrect and correct, respectively? > >> So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was >> my point. :) > > So your point was that Numbers use of the term "table" is > incorrect? Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself? > As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would be better if they were more consistent though. Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than we do now. Most people get the context at least most of the time. There *is* room for some confusion, but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call "spreadsheets"). But they do this for a reason and, except when first learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people outside of COLA. Maybe it does... open to seeing it. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1c0f8cf-25e2-4671-b172-91266799d596@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451590 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: (snip) > >> One weakness with Owl's claim, though, is the use of the term "table" is > >> not consistent even in the sc man page: > >> > >> <https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sc&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-RELEASE+and+Ports&format=html> > >> > >> OR <https://goo.gl/kPm434> > >> ----- > >> The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables much > >> like a financial spreadsheet. When invoked it presents you with a > >> table organized as rows and columns of cells. If invoked without a > >> file argument, the table is initially empty. > >> ----- > >> > >> THE table. Not tables. > > > > "The spreadsheet calculator sc is based on rectangular tables" > > > > It says "tables", not "THE table". That it *opens* with only one confused > > only *you*. > > > >> Still, technically (even if the documentation is not clear) > > > > Not clear to whom? You? You've even seen owl show multiple > > tables on the worksheet, you've claimed to use vc. How can it > > not be clear to you? We know how ;) > > > >> , Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which > >> illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are > > > > .... incorrect and correct, respectively? > > > >> So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was > >> my point. :) > > > > So your point was that Numbers use of the term "table" is > > incorrect? Good on you, so why are you arguing with yourself? > > > > As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, > which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would > be better if they were more consistent though. All I saw was you point to one paragraph, and its use did not do what you're claiming. > Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in > how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! LOL! In a computing context the term 'table' has always been to organize data into rows and columns. Why aren't you, Mr. PEE, calling for consistency to something that is this obvious? > But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different > spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides > and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than > we do now. Examples? > Most people get the context at least most of the time. The term is 'table', the context is 'computing'. Stick to that and the well worn definitions and you'll fine. > There *is* room for some confusion Confusion only creeps in for those who let it. Some seem to have a bizarre penchant for relativism even when it makes no sense to apply it as they redefine industry standard terms. > , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel > makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that > exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call > "spreadsheets"). Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to organize data with the ability to have more than one table per worksheet? > But they do this for a reason and, except when first > learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people > outside of COLA. That I see, you're the only one who appears to be confused... except, even you pointed out owl's use was "correct". So are you just trolling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm5rtsFokpoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451592 |
On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> As noted: the sc documentation uses the term "table" in different ways, >> which is not TOO bad given how you can generally tell in context. Would >> be better if they were more consistent though. > > All I saw was you point to one paragraph, and its use did not > do what you're claiming. It speaks of presenting you with a "table" when it really presents you with a spreadsheet. You can set up a table on that spreadsheet, but by default it does not have any tables set up. Nor does Excel. >> Hey, owl (and you) are arguing that there should be more consistency in >> how different spreadsheets use terms. You want better consistency... cool! > > LOL! In a computing context the term 'table' has always been to > organize data into rows and columns. Why aren't you, Mr. PEE, > calling for consistency to something that is this obvious? Before Owl corrected me and I did some research I made the same mistake you are making now... so I shan't put you down for it. :) >> But the term "table" has been used in different ways by different >> spreadsheets for ages. Heck, go back to the Apple IIe AppleWorks guides >> and the Lotus 1-2-3 guides and I am sure they use terms differently than >> we do now. > > Examples? Looked at Lotus 1-2-3 and was surprised to see it speak of "spreadsheets" in the way sc and Excel does (though except when it speaks of HTML tables it does not use the term "table" the way you do above, or the way Numbers does... as I noted, Numbers uses the term "table" more as HTML does than other spreadsheet programs). And, to my surprise, even AppleWorks on the Apple IIe speaks of multiple tables on the same spreadsheet. So maybe I am wrong on that. I can accept that. >> Most people get the context at least most of the time. > > The term is 'table', the context is 'computing'. Stick to that > and the well worn definitions and you'll fine. Keep in mind you got confused between a spreadsheet (which is a grid of labeled rows and columns) with that of a table (which is also a grid of rows and columns, though not always labeled). But, predictably, you will deny your error and blame me. :) >> There *is* room for some confusion > > Confusion only creeps in for those who let it. Some seem to > have a bizarre penchant for relativism even when it makes no > sense to apply it as they redefine industry standard terms. Keep in mind how you got confused, above. :) >> , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel >> makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that >> exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call >> "spreadsheets"). > > Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to > organize data with the ability to have more than one table per > worksheet? Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". >> But they do this for a reason and, except when first >> learning it, I do not see evidence this causes much confusion in people >> outside of COLA. > > That I see, you're the only one who appears to be confused... > except, even you pointed out owl's use was "correct". So are > you just trolling? Owl's use was correct for sc (I think) ... and mostly though not fully correct for Excel (where the term "table" has a very specific and different meaning). He was not correct for how Numbers uses the term. I get this... at least largely. Given the subtle differences in how the terms are used, and even the internal inconsistencies shown in the sc man page, when you get really pedantic as you and owl are pushing there may still be some confusion. For myself and most people in the world -- novices or techies, though, we can use context to generally understand each other just fine. Most people do not get as pedantic as the two of you. -- 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 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9b8z0803ga.o34@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451601 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... >>> , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel >>> makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that >>> exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call >>> "spreadsheets"). >> >> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to >> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per >> worksheet? > > Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is > different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of > cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can > work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, > alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each > other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". > Like this? https://pewtube.com/user/owl/BYDZACc?autoplay=off
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm69iiFrn38U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451614 |
On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... > >>>> , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel >>>> makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that >>>> exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call >>>> "spreadsheets"). >>> >>> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to >>> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per >>> worksheet? >> >> Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is >> different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of >> cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can >> work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row, >> alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each >> other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List". >> > > Like this? > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/BYDZACc?autoplay=off Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables. I have not used the Excel table feature much, but it is more than just that: <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/overview-of-excel-tables-7ab0bb7d-3a9e-4b56-a3c9-6c94334e492c> OR <https://goo.gl/kN6bHC> -- 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 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szb9038at.a3o@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451624 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>>>> , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel
>>>>> makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that
>>>>> exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call
>>>>> "spreadsheets").
>>>>
>>>> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to
>>>> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per
>>>> worksheet?
>>>
>>> Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is
>>> different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of
>>> cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can
>>> work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row,
>>> alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each
>>> other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List".
>>>
>>
>> Like this?
>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/BYDZACc?autoplay=off
>
> Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you
> are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables.
>
@index() is builtin. Frames are builtin. Named ranges are builtin.
"Tables" are so fundamental to the very idea of spreadsheets that
there is no need to "add" them, or even say that they are "builtin."
You cannot have a spreadsheet at all without a table. Seriously, if
you don't get that, then there is something wrong with your brain.
<quote>
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
table
n 1: a set of data arranged in rows and columns; "see table 1"
[syn: {table}, {tabular array}]
</quote>
> I have not used the Excel table feature much, but it is more than just that:
>
> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/overview-of-excel-tables-7ab0bb7d-3a9e-4b56-a3c9-6c94334e492c>
> OR <https://goo.gl/kN6bHC>
>
All of that is just some shortcut naming and GUI widgets giving streamlined
access to fundamental operations. Nothing radical is happening. The tables
are still just sections of the sheet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6dduFsggfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451633 |
On 5/17/18 3:09 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> , but, really, in this case it is pretty clear. Excel
>>>>>> makes things the most confusing by having a feature called "tables" that
>>>>>> exist on their "sheets" (which I think they sometimes call
>>>>>> "spreadsheets").
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that confusing if it merely means rows and columns to
>>>>> organize data with the ability to have more than one table per
>>>>> worksheet?
>>>>
>>>> Excel uses the term "table" to mean a very specific thing which is
>>>> different than how you and owl use the term. It is not just a range of
>>>> cells in the worksheet but a grouping the software recognizes and can
>>>> work with in a different way. This grouping has its own header row,
>>>> alternate row colors, calculated columns which work in concert with each
>>>> other, etc. This feature used to be called an "Excel List".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like this?
>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/BYDZACc?autoplay=off
>>
>> Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you
>> are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables.
>>
>
> @index() is builtin. Frames are builtin. Named ranges are builtin.
> "Tables" are so fundamental to the very idea of spreadsheets that
> there is no need to "add" them, or even say that they are "builtin."
> You cannot have a spreadsheet at all without a table. Seriously, if
> you don't get that, then there is something wrong with your brain.
While you dodge the question, I think it is clear that you named those
ranges, or frames, "table1", etc. So those are not built in names.
Seems sc calls those "ranges". Are you able to answer that more directly?
> <quote>
> From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
>
> table
> n 1: a set of data arranged in rows and columns; "see table 1"
> [syn: {table}, {tabular array}]
>
> </quote>
If it helps you to look that up, great!
>> I have not used the Excel table feature much, but it is more than just that:
>>
>> <https://support.office.com/en-us/article/overview-of-excel-tables-7ab0bb7d-3a9e-4b56-a3c9-6c94334e492c>
>> OR <https://goo.gl/kN6bHC>
>>
>
> All of that is just some shortcut naming and GUI widgets giving streamlined
> access to fundamental operations. Nothing radical is happening. The tables
> are still just sections of the sheet.
Sections on the sheet with, as you note, streamlined access to other
operations and with those being named. They are akin, I think, to the
"ranges" feature of sc.
Fair enough... and backs my point that different spreadsheets use
somewhat different terminology. Thanks.
--
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 22:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sz9080ga.auo4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451634 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 3:09 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> ... >>>> >>> Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you >>> are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables. >>> >> >> @index() is builtin. Frames are builtin. Named ranges are builtin. >> "Tables" are so fundamental to the very idea of spreadsheets that >> there is no need to "add" them, or even say that they are "builtin." >> You cannot have a spreadsheet at all without a table. Seriously, if >> you don't get that, then there is something wrong with your brain. > > While you dodge the question, I think it is clear that you named those > ranges, or frames, "table1", etc. So those are not built in names. > > Seems sc calls those "ranges". Are you able to answer that more directly? > Every table in every spreadsheet known to man is a "range." Creating named ranges or frames is not necessary for tables in SC. They only make referencing them easier. You can call @index(a4:h9,1,4) or you can create named range and call @index(foo,1,4).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6eugFsov9U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451640 |
On 5/17/18 3:41 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/17/18 3:09 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>> Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you >>>> are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables. >>>> >>> >>> @index() is builtin. Frames are builtin. Named ranges are builtin. >>> "Tables" are so fundamental to the very idea of spreadsheets that >>> there is no need to "add" them, or even say that they are "builtin." >>> You cannot have a spreadsheet at all without a table. Seriously, if >>> you don't get that, then there is something wrong with your brain. >> >> While you dodge the question, I think it is clear that you named those >> ranges, or frames, "table1", etc. So those are not built in names. >> >> Seems sc calls those "ranges". Are you able to answer that more directly? > > Every table in every spreadsheet known to man is a "range." Creating > named ranges or frames is not necessary for tables in SC. They only > make referencing them easier. You can call @index(a4:h9,1,4) or you > can create named range and call @index(foo,1,4). As I said, so those were not built in names. You could have called them things like "pickle1" and not "table1". And seems those named ranged are called "indexes", or at least are created with the "index" command. 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 | 2018-05-17 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8a08b83ga.gu3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451642 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 3:41 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/17/18 3:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/18 11:55 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/17/18 9:37 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>> Is that a built in command or did you create it? Looks to me like you >>>>> are creating named ranges you are referring to as tables. >>>>> >>>> >>>> @index() is builtin. Frames are builtin. Named ranges are builtin. >>>> "Tables" are so fundamental to the very idea of spreadsheets that >>>> there is no need to "add" them, or even say that they are "builtin." >>>> You cannot have a spreadsheet at all without a table. Seriously, if >>>> you don't get that, then there is something wrong with your brain. >>> >>> While you dodge the question, I think it is clear that you named those >>> ranges, or frames, "table1", etc. So those are not built in names. >>> >>> Seems sc calls those "ranges". Are you able to answer that more directly? >> >> Every table in every spreadsheet known to man is a "range." Creating >> named ranges or frames is not necessary for tables in SC. They only >> make referencing them easier. You can call @index(a4:h9,1,4) or you >> can create named range and call @index(foo,1,4). > > As I said, so those were not built in names. You could have called them > things like "pickle1" and not "table1". You don't need to name tables in SC, but you can, by naming the range that makes up the table. > And seems those named ranged are > called "indexes", or at least are created with the "index" command. Wrong. @index() is a builtin function that allows you to get data from a table, using row/column indices relative to that table. For instance if you decide to have a table at the range D10:K20, calling @index(D10:K20,2,4) will return the data in cell E13. If you have named the range "foo," you can just call @index(foo,2,4).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm6gvuFt63dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451643 |
On 5/17/18 4:08 PM, owl wrote: ...>> As I said, so those were not built in names. You could have called them >> things like "pickle1" and not "table1". > > You don't need to name tables in SC, but you can, by naming the range > that makes up the table. > >> And seems those named ranged are >> called "indexes", or at least are created with the "index" command. > > Wrong. @index() is a builtin function that allows you to get data > from a table, using row/column indices relative to that table. > For instance if you decide to have a table at the range D10:K20, calling > @index(D10:K20,2,4) will return the data in cell E13. If you have > named the range "foo," you can just call @index(foo,2,4). Thanks. If I understand correctly the named range does not even stay as any construct recognized by the application unless you name it (in this case "foo", but in the other example things like "table1"). If you do that then you have a named range with, well, that name. :) -- 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 23 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web