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 5 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 27 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm13d1FmvluU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451457 |
On 5/15/18 2:53 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/15/18 12:54 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/18 11:41 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/18 1:48 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> What Numbers gave me was a way to do an arbitrary task very quickly. >>>>>> With this one, making a bigger multiplication table, I was able to do it >>>>>> with NO prep and no scripting in mere seconds: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/Y8KLSAWrPKY> >>>>> >>>>> My script does the same thing, only much faster. >>>> >>>> The point I am making is I did not have to script that. I just opened >>>> the file and did it... you saw ALL the work done in the file. NO prep >>>> other than to open it and make it full screen (mostly for the sake of >>>> recording). >>> >>> But I never have to script it again. It's a macro, there to be used >>> in the future by any sheet that wants to use it. Just like with Excel >>> macros. >> >> Sure. But you will have other tasks to do. So will I. And THOSE will not >> be pre-scripted. >> >> Now if you have the same task to do repeatedly a new script is great... >> and sc offers an advantage there. > > Well, all of the things that the script does can be done from within > SC itself, using commands. And like I said before, SC makes it far > easier to do things like, for instance, expand one of these tables > to gigantic size. No need to drag a GUI handle across a scrolling > screen for hundreds of rows or columns. Just feed your command a > range such as C38:ZZ500. Sure... but you still had to script it to get it to work well. > But things like alternating colors for lines (which are not a builtin > format option) -- while doable manually -- are done much more easily > with a script using a loop. What Numbers does it does well, but sc is more scriptable. It also has limits that Numbers does not (we have covered some in the past). In short they are made for very different purposes. >>>>> In the context of Numbers vs SC, I'm more interested in GUI vs CLI >>>>> methods. Stock SC is itself limited for crunching, given that it can only >>>>> handle 702 columns x 32K rows. That's one of the reasons I hacked it. >>>>> (Although I keep running into things my initial hack breaks, such as >>>>> frames, so that needs work). >>>> >>>> At the time I speculated there may very well be a reason they limited >>>> the tables to the sizes they did. >>> >>> The reason for the limitation probably has to do with the systems in use >>> when it was written. The reason for the breakage of frames is that I >>> haven't tracked down all references to limits. (The "format" command also >>> fails to save with a file). >> >> Would be interesting to see how long it takes to track down all the issues. > > "Interesting" is not the word I would use to describe the effort, though. :) -- 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 | 2018-05-16 00:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lah9b08a3tgahp.55r@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451458 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/15/18 2:53 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/18 12:54 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/18 11:41 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/18 1:48 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What Numbers gave me was a way to do an arbitrary task very quickly. >>>>>>> With this one, making a bigger multiplication table, I was able to do it >>>>>>> with NO prep and no scripting in mere seconds: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/Y8KLSAWrPKY> >>>>>> >>>>>> My script does the same thing, only much faster. >>>>> >>>>> The point I am making is I did not have to script that. I just opened >>>>> the file and did it... you saw ALL the work done in the file. NO prep >>>>> other than to open it and make it full screen (mostly for the sake of >>>>> recording). >>>> >>>> But I never have to script it again. It's a macro, there to be used >>>> in the future by any sheet that wants to use it. Just like with Excel >>>> macros. >>> >>> Sure. But you will have other tasks to do. So will I. And THOSE will not >>> be pre-scripted. >>> >>> Now if you have the same task to do repeatedly a new script is great... >>> and sc offers an advantage there. >> >> Well, all of the things that the script does can be done from within >> SC itself, using commands. And like I said before, SC makes it far >> easier to do things like, for instance, expand one of these tables >> to gigantic size. No need to drag a GUI handle across a scrolling >> screen for hundreds of rows or columns. Just feed your command a >> range such as C38:ZZ500. > > Sure... but you still had to script it to get it to work well. > The reason I scripted it to was to make it nearly instantaneous. Here is a completely manual expansion of a 10x10 table to 500x500 (took about 1 minute): https://pewtube.com/user/owl/Fe8oj6F?autoplay=off This would be basically the same procedure on a cell phone. With a bluetooth keyboard, the times would be nearly identical. But even with a software keyboard it would not be an unbearable task, and I doubt it would take much more than a couple minutes. On a decent size phone or tablet, it would be no trouble at all. >> But things like alternating colors for lines (which are not a builtin >> format option) -- while doable manually -- are done much more easily >> with a script using a loop. > > What Numbers does it does well, but sc is more scriptable. It also has > limits that Numbers does not (we have covered some in the past). SC has some formatting limitations with respect to Numbers. > In > short they are made for very different purposes. > They are both spreadsheets. They are made for the same purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm1e3hFp34jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451475 |
On 5/15/18 5:49 PM, owl wrote: ... >>>>> But I never have to script it again. It's a macro, there to be used >>>>> in the future by any sheet that wants to use it. Just like with Excel >>>>> macros. >>>> >>>> Sure. But you will have other tasks to do. So will I. And THOSE will not >>>> be pre-scripted. >>>> >>>> Now if you have the same task to do repeatedly a new script is great... >>>> and sc offers an advantage there. >>> >>> Well, all of the things that the script does can be done from within >>> SC itself, using commands. And like I said before, SC makes it far >>> easier to do things like, for instance, expand one of these tables >>> to gigantic size. No need to drag a GUI handle across a scrolling >>> screen for hundreds of rows or columns. Just feed your command a >>> range such as C38:ZZ500. >> >> Sure... but you still had to script it to get it to work well. > > The reason I scripted it to was to make it nearly instantaneous. > Here is a completely manual expansion of a 10x10 table to 500x500 > (took about 1 minute): > > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/Fe8oj6F?autoplay=off > > This would be basically the same procedure on a cell phone. With > a bluetooth keyboard, the times would be nearly identical. But even > with a software keyboard it would not be an unbearable task, and > I doubt it would take much more than a couple minutes. On a decent > size phone or tablet, it would be no trouble at all. Sure. I have no issue with that. And for making such a large multiplication table sc is a much better choice because you can control it with CLI commands. >>> But things like alternating colors for lines (which are not a builtin >>> format option) -- while doable manually -- are done much more easily >>> with a script using a loop. >> >> What Numbers does it does well, but sc is more scriptable. It also has >> limits that Numbers does not (we have covered some in the past). > > SC has some formatting limitations with respect to Numbers. The basic premise of the table formatting and layout is different. >> 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. -- 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 | 2018-05-16 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x11b00z8b3ga.ju4u@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451476 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13e1345a-401d-4801-ad19-d17b25f4aabb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451480 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x90z88b03.ag3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451481 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? > > One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;) Doh! I should have RTFM. https://imgur.com/a/GT7qv
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25bea117-d27a-4336-8ceb-82ec2f31e70e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451483 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? > > > > One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;) > > Doh! I should have RTFM. > https://imgur.com/a/GT7qv Good one ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 01:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6231307-7a42-4dc9-b5cd-b98ac8751244@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451486 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:09:23 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? > > > > > > One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;) > > > > Doh! I should have RTFM. > > https://imgur.com/a/GT7qv > > Good one ;) Bit Twister just wiped the floor with God. <giggle> Enough already. You're again trying to push your ego when you have no skill. You're the dull knife in the drawer and your many idiotic programs show this. What is your evidence? Sandman trolls God. Here is a list of names Jonas Eklundh has admitted he attributes to God "Cactus Pete", "Donald", "Donald Miller", "Horace McSwain", "Hymen", "meat", "Mike Weaver", "Modena IV Drid", "Omar Murad Asfour", "Rhino Plastee", "Soapy", "SopwithCamel", "Sunny Day", "Takuya Saitoh", "The Letter Q", "tmelmosfire", "zevon". All total lies, of course. I am fanboi of System76, because that's where all the stimulating breakthroughs are happening. God is the result of the truth that Democrats have been appointed to be in charge of indoctrinating children. It is not chance that he is a stupid leftist. Bit Twister has a LOT of know-how to teach and he seems to want to write tutorials. Regrettably this is without a doubt the most frustrating medium for doing that because much of response is moaning, lying and other BS. -- Eight things to never feed your dog! http://www.5z8.info/--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--_k7s1jt_inject_worm https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4 Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm1ia0FpqolU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451483 |
On 5/15/18 7:05 PM, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? >> >> One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;) > > Doh! I should have RTFM. > https://imgur.com/a/GT7qv > I know you are joking, but it is amazing to me how often Linux folks show they have their ego tied to Linux systems and are insecure about it. Just weird to me. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm1i2cFpqolU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451481 |
On 5/15/18 6:52 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:47:31 PM UTC-6, 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? > > One is obviously for poster creators, the "other" is for 'the poor folk' ;) > LOL! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm1i1jFpqolU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451480 |
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> Or the real world example I used with you before: <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU> -- 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 | 2018-05-16 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sz9b08308ga.guo43@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451484 |
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. > Or the real world example I used with you before: > > <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU> > SC can do inter-sheet communication with xdotool or tmux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm48poFdjuqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451548 |
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) >> 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. -- 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 05:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z0897b3a.buo7xh@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451557 |
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$
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 06:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fm4k8hFftieU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451561 |
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$ > > Word games does not give it two separate tables. See the “magic” sheet I showed for tables that do not line up, for example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t2vqfdl0gm4l3lvlufmugbh7dc977609av@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #451561 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm5h2jFm849U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451568 |
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. Still, technically (even if the documentation is
not clear), Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which
illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are so different than the
terminology between the two does not make much sense.
sc has a single grid (with cells such as A1 and Z99) that can be called
a single spreadsheet which can have multiple sections you can refer to
as tables. Excel allows you to even define these ranges AS tables (maybe
sc can as well? I do not recall).
Numbers has no real equal to what Excel (and maybe sc) call a
"spreadsheet" (it can have multiple "A1" cells on a single sheet), even
though it clearly is a spreadsheet program. It has individual tables
which are on sheets. Those tables are not tied to each other (though
they can reference each other's fields). They need not be lined up, and
in the canvas in which they "float" you can have shapes, images, text,
or even videos.
So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was
my point. :)
--
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 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a9b8008t3a.guo3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451576 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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.
> -----
>
sc manpage:
<quote>
@index(r,e1,e2) Use the values of expressions e1 and (optionally) e2
...
second and third arguments will then be interpreted
as row and column, respectively, for indexing into a
two-dimensional table.
...
@nval(se,e) Return the numeric value of a cell selected by name.
...
has no numeric value, the result is 0. You can use
this for simple table lookups. Be sure the table
doesn't move unexpectedly! See also @sval() below.
...
@ext(se,e) Call an external function (program or script). The
purpose is to allow arbitrary functions on values,
e.g. table lookups and interpolations.
</quote>
> THE table. Not tables. Still, technically (even if the documentation is
> not clear), Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which
> illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are so different than the
> terminology between the two does not make much sense.
>
It is Numbers that is breaking tradition and redefining things.
SC uses a single sheet, with tables inside the sheet, as does Excel.
But of course sheets are tables, as are all tabular data.
> sc has a single grid (with cells such as A1 and Z99) that can be called
> a single spreadsheet which can have multiple sections you can refer to
> as tables. Excel allows you to even define these ranges AS tables (maybe
> sc can as well? I do not recall).
>
> Numbers has no real equal to what Excel (and maybe sc) call a
> "spreadsheet"
Strange that a spreadsheet app has no concept of a spreadsheet.
> (it can have multiple "A1" cells on a single sheet), even
> though it clearly is a spreadsheet program. It has individual tables
> which are on sheets. Those tables are not tied to each other (though
> they can reference each other's fields). They need not be lined up, and
> in the canvas in which they "float" you can have shapes, images, text,
> or even videos.
>
And that "canvas" has nothing to do with spreadsheets, so it's just
fluff. The "spreadsheet" functionality of Numbers is contained within
what its "tables" (which are just sheets).
> So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was
> my point. :)
>
I note how Numbers is different from traditional spreadsheet apps with
redefinition of a common term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fm5meeFne4iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451578 |
On 5/17/18 8:16 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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. >> ----- >> > > sc manpage: > <quote> > @index(r,e1,e2) Use the values of expressions e1 and (optionally) e2 > ... > second and third arguments will then be interpreted > as row and column, respectively, for indexing into a > two-dimensional table. > > .... > > @nval(se,e) Return the numeric value of a cell selected by name. > ... > has no numeric value, the result is 0. You can use > this for simple table lookups. Be sure the table > doesn't move unexpectedly! See also @sval() below. > .... > > @ext(se,e) Call an external function (program or script). The > purpose is to allow arbitrary functions on values, > e.g. table lookups and interpolations. > > </quote> > > > >> THE table. Not tables. Still, technically (even if the documentation is >> not clear), Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which >> illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are so different than the >> terminology between the two does not make much sense. >> > > It is Numbers that is breaking tradition and redefining things. > SC uses a single sheet, with tables inside the sheet, as does Excel. > But of course sheets are tables, as are all tabular data. OK, so sc and Numbers, while both being spreadsheets, are very different types of programs... so much so that they do not even use common definitions. I can go with that. Sure. >> sc has a single grid (with cells such as A1 and Z99) that can be called >> a single spreadsheet which can have multiple sections you can refer to >> as tables. Excel allows you to even define these ranges AS tables (maybe >> sc can as well? I do not recall). >> >> Numbers has no real equal to what Excel (and maybe sc) call a >> "spreadsheet" > > Strange that a spreadsheet app has no concept of a spreadsheet. It has a different "concept" of one. Sure. They are very different types of programs. No doubt. >> (it can have multiple "A1" cells on a single sheet), even >> though it clearly is a spreadsheet program. It has individual tables >> which are on sheets. Those tables are not tied to each other (though >> they can reference each other's fields). They need not be lined up, and >> in the canvas in which they "float" you can have shapes, images, text, >> or even videos. > > And that "canvas" has nothing to do with spreadsheets, so it's just > fluff. The "spreadsheet" functionality of Numbers is contained within > what its "tables" (which are just sheets). The canvas is not a spreadsheet, but that does not make it "fluff". It means it is a very different type of program... one you do not really get. I am OK with that. And I also understand at least some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two paradigms. Excel is closer to sc in terms of types of programs, and I use both Numbers and Excel. I used to use vc, which (I think) sc is based on. Been a LONG time since I have done so, though. And the tables in Numbers are not "sheets". Sheets are tabs within a single file (though to call them "tabs" would be confusing given how you can have different files in tabs in the same window). A sheet can have zero, one, or more tables (though generally has at least one). This is different terminology than you use, of course, because of how different the programs are. >> So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was >> my point. :) > > I note how Numbers is different from traditional spreadsheet apps with > redefinition of a common term. The concept of the program is different. It uses the terms in ways which make sense but which are not the same as Numbers and sc (which is not to say they are wrong, either). This is similar to how you failed to understand how a text editor and a word processor are not the same... even though they have overlaps and might use the same terms in somewhat different ways. -- 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 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sb9038ag3.au3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #451581 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/17/18 8:16 AM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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. >>> ----- >>> >> >> sc manpage: >> <quote> >> @index(r,e1,e2) Use the values of expressions e1 and (optionally) e2 >> ... >> second and third arguments will then be interpreted >> as row and column, respectively, for indexing into a >> two-dimensional table. >> >> .... >> >> @nval(se,e) Return the numeric value of a cell selected by name. >> ... >> has no numeric value, the result is 0. You can use >> this for simple table lookups. Be sure the table >> doesn't move unexpectedly! See also @sval() below. >> .... >> >> @ext(se,e) Call an external function (program or script). The >> purpose is to allow arbitrary functions on values, >> e.g. table lookups and interpolations. >> >> </quote> >> >> >> >>> THE table. Not tables. Still, technically (even if the documentation is >>> not clear), Owl's use of the word "table" is correct... which >>> illustrates my point. Numbers and sc are so different than the >>> terminology between the two does not make much sense. >>> >> >> It is Numbers that is breaking tradition and redefining things. >> SC uses a single sheet, with tables inside the sheet, as does Excel. >> But of course sheets are tables, as are all tabular data. > > OK, so sc and Numbers, while both being spreadsheets, are very different > types of programs... so much so that they do not even use common > definitions. > > I can go with that. Sure. > >>> sc has a single grid (with cells such as A1 and Z99) that can be called >>> a single spreadsheet which can have multiple sections you can refer to >>> as tables. Excel allows you to even define these ranges AS tables (maybe >>> sc can as well? I do not recall). >>> >>> Numbers has no real equal to what Excel (and maybe sc) call a >>> "spreadsheet" >> >> Strange that a spreadsheet app has no concept of a spreadsheet. > > It has a different "concept" of one. Sure. They are very different types > of programs. No doubt. > >>> (it can have multiple "A1" cells on a single sheet), even >>> though it clearly is a spreadsheet program. It has individual tables >>> which are on sheets. Those tables are not tied to each other (though >>> they can reference each other's fields). They need not be lined up, and >>> in the canvas in which they "float" you can have shapes, images, text, >>> or even videos. >> >> And that "canvas" has nothing to do with spreadsheets, so it's just >> fluff. The "spreadsheet" functionality of Numbers is contained within >> what its "tables" (which are just sheets). > > The canvas is not a spreadsheet, but that does not make it "fluff". It > means it is a very different type of program... one you do not really > get. I am OK with that. And I also understand at least some of the > strengths and weaknesses of the two paradigms. Excel is closer to sc in > terms of types of programs, and I use both Numbers and Excel. I used to > use vc, which (I think) sc is based on. Been a LONG time since I have > done so, though. > > And the tables in Numbers are not "sheets". Sheets are tabs within a > single file (though to call them "tabs" would be confusing given how you > can have different files in tabs in the same window). A sheet can have > zero, one, or more tables (though generally has at least one). > From what I understand, when you convert a Numbers file with multiple tables to Excel, all the Numbers "tables" become separate Excel sheets. (As they should, because they are, well, sheets :). > This is different terminology than you use, of course, because of how > different the programs are. > Different terminology than I, and the rest of the non-Apple world, use. >>> So owl is right to note how different the two program are... which was >>> my point. :) >> >> I note how Numbers is different from traditional spreadsheet apps with >> redefinition of a common term. > > The concept of the program is different. It uses the terms in ways which > make sense but which are not the same as Numbers and sc (which is not to > say they are wrong, either). > > This is similar to how you failed to understand how a text editor and a > word processor are not the same... even though they have overlaps and > might use the same terms in somewhat different ways. > The one failing to understand here is you. And you appear to have changed your opinion of these things recently. Previously you were arguing that Apple's definition of a "table" was the be-all-and-end-all of table definitions. As for what constitutes a "word processor," all of the so-called word processors are venturing far out into DTP territory. They need to stick to "processing words" and get that right first -- polishing and working out bugs in things like pagination, sections, etc. -- before worrying about "rotating images."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web