By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,462 Members | 2,360 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,462 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is it OK to post small image attachments here?

P: n/a
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
49 Replies


P: n/a
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:24:58 -0500, Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote:

Our official charter at http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm says
no.
A good alternative may be to include a link to such an image on your
website. I'm assuming that the image would be more than a screendump
of a MsgBox: such text is easily entered in your posting.

-Tom.
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?


Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:24:58 -0500, Lauren Wilson wrote:
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?


No, it's not.
For one thing, very few of us would even think of opening an
attachment now-a-days, and secondly, it's probably not necessary to
see it.
If you are getting an error, tell us what you are trying to do, how
you are doing it, the error number/description and your version of
Access.
--
Fred
Please only reply to this newsgroup.
I do not reply to personal email.
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it
into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude.
I've found it to be true that the process of composing a message about the
problem is a major step toward figuring it out. It's as if the synapses
firing while writing about a problem are the same ones involved in the
solution to the problem. Once I understand my problem well enough to write
it out in a few paragraphs, I am already much closer to solving it. You
don't get that benefit by merely pasting an image. While it may be true that
a picture tells a thousand words, you still need those words. The picture
won't solve the problem, but sometimes the words will help.
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?

Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a

Hi Richard,

I completely agree with the value of the process you describe below.
I envisioned using BOT methods -- a complete description of the steps
that lead to the error as well as an image of the error box.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is no
longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus writers.
Such people need to be hunted down, dragged into the street and simply
shot. I have lost all patience with those people and with the
virtually useless, overpriced government we foolishly depend on to
stop these idiots. A hi-tech vigilante team may ultimately be
required.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:40:39 GMT, "Richard Hollenbeck"
<ri****************@verizon.net> wrote:
I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it
into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude.
I've found it to be true that the process of composing a message about the
problem is a major step toward figuring it out. It's as if the synapses
firing while writing about a problem are the same ones involved in the
solution to the problem. Once I understand my problem well enough to write
it out in a few paragraphs, I am already much closer to solving it. You
don't get that benefit by merely pasting an image. While it may be true that
a picture tells a thousand words, you still need those words. The picture
won't solve the problem, but sometimes the words will help.
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?


Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:go********************************@4ax.com:
It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is
no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus
writers.


Sorry, but I don't understand why this is a problem.

It's *where* you put the capture image that was in question, and
it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page
rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.

If you mean, however, that somehow screen captures have been
rendered impossible by virus writers, then I've completely
misunderstood.

If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be
vastly misplaced.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can
copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C

(david)
"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:go********************************@4ax.com...

Hi Richard,

I completely agree with the value of the process you describe below.
I envisioned using BOT methods -- a complete description of the steps
that lead to the error as well as an image of the error box.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is no
longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus writers.
Such people need to be hunted down, dragged into the street and simply
shot. I have lost all patience with those people and with the
virtually useless, overpriced government we foolishly depend on to
stop these idiots. A hi-tech vigilante team may ultimately be
required.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:40:39 GMT, "Richard Hollenbeck"
<ri****************@verizon.net> wrote:
I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it
into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude.
I've found it to be true that the process of composing a message about theproblem is a major step toward figuring it out. It's as if the synapses
firing while writing about a problem are the same ones involved in the
solution to the problem. Once I understand my problem well enough to writeit out in a few paragraphs, I am already much closer to solving it. You
don't get that benefit by merely pasting an image. While it may be true thata picture tells a thousand words, you still need those words. The picturewon't solve the problem, but sometimes the words will help.
Hi folks,

Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
problem with Access?

Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:54:09 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:go********************************@4ax.com :
It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is
no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus
writers.


Sorry, but I don't understand why this is a problem.

It's *where* you put the capture image that was in question, and
it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page
rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.

If you mean, however, that somehow screen captures have been
rendered impossible by virus writers, then I've completely
misunderstood.

If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be
vastly misplaced.


My vehemence is NOT directed at anyone in this group -- unless, of
course, some of the sub-human slime who write and/or distribute
viruses or spyware are lurking here. It was simply an expression of
extreme frustration over the fact that the entire Internet experience
is slowly being rendered a nightmare by such people -- and that a
perfect example of it is expressed in one of the responses to this
very thread.

On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus
posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image,
well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved in
two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to simply post
an image here as an attachment. I don't HAVE a web site that I can
use to post such images and by the time I go to the trouble of setting
one up just for that purpose, I could have solved the problem, myself
several times over. The fact that we cannot include clarifying
imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous. However, I
understand why it is not allowed -- because everyone is fearful of
opening attachments and that fear is driven by the criminal behavior
of a tiny minority of vicious, despicable human beings. So, we now
have a perfectly wonderful mechanism for accurate communication on
harmless subjects that is ruined by criminals who do not even deserve
the common human decency of due process.

Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been the
case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it
to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only those who want
to see the image will download it. And, of course, it's a more
efficient use of bandwidth,..."

Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they
read the text portion of the message. So what's the difference? My
news reader does not download ANY attachment unless I tell it to.
That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had
an attachment.
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:49:14 +1100, "david epsom dot com dot au"
<david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:
But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can
copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C

(david)
Using Windows XP Professional SP2 I am not able to select or copy
ANYTHING from most error boxes, especially the ones produced by ANY
version of Access. This is ANOTHER exasperating thing that I failed
to comment on. Thanks for reminding me.


"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:go********************************@4ax.com.. .

Hi Richard,

I completely agree with the value of the process you describe below.
I envisioned using BOT methods -- a complete description of the steps
that lead to the error as well as an image of the error box.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is no
longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus writers.
Such people need to be hunted down, dragged into the street and simply
shot. I have lost all patience with those people and with the
virtually useless, overpriced government we foolishly depend on to
stop these idiots. A hi-tech vigilante team may ultimately be
required.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:40:39 GMT, "Richard Hollenbeck"
<ri****************@verizon.net> wrote:
>I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it
>into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude.
>I've found it to be true that the process of composing a message aboutthe >problem is a major step toward figuring it out. It's as if the synapses
>firing while writing about a problem are the same ones involved in the
>solution to the problem. Once I understand my problem well enough towrite >it out in a few paragraphs, I am already much closer to solving it. You
>don't get that benefit by merely pasting an image. While it may be truethat >a picture tells a thousand words, you still need those words. Thepicture >won't solve the problem, but sometimes the words will help.
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
> > Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post
>> small image files of an error box along with a text message about a
>> problem with Access?
>


Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
Lauren... you can get a free website, with plenty of storage for
occastionally uploading a picture, at http://www.tripod.com, among other
places. Tripod has been handy for me because you can specify use of the
FrontPage extensions, which has let me easily create static websites with MS
Front Page. And, as I keep a copy on my local machine, I can update then
upload without a lot of effort.

There'll be some ads displayed along with your site, but if it is a
non-commercial site, that shouldn't be a problem (that is, you won't be
taking a chance on advertising a competing product or service).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:t3********************************@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:54:09 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:go********************************@4ax.com :
It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is
no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus
writers.


Sorry, but I don't understand why this is a problem.

It's *where* you put the capture image that was in question, and
it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page
rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.

If you mean, however, that somehow screen captures have been
rendered impossible by virus writers, then I've completely
misunderstood.

If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be
vastly misplaced.


My vehemence is NOT directed at anyone in this group -- unless, of
course, some of the sub-human slime who write and/or distribute
viruses or spyware are lurking here. It was simply an expression of
extreme frustration over the fact that the entire Internet experience
is slowly being rendered a nightmare by such people -- and that a
perfect example of it is expressed in one of the responses to this
very thread.

On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus
posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image,
well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved in
two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to simply post
an image here as an attachment. I don't HAVE a web site that I can
use to post such images and by the time I go to the trouble of setting
one up just for that purpose, I could have solved the problem, myself
several times over. The fact that we cannot include clarifying
imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous. However, I
understand why it is not allowed -- because everyone is fearful of
opening attachments and that fear is driven by the criminal behavior
of a tiny minority of vicious, despicable human beings. So, we now
have a perfectly wonderful mechanism for accurate communication on
harmless subjects that is ruined by criminals who do not even deserve
the common human decency of due process.

Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been the
case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it
to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only those who want
to see the image will download it. And, of course, it's a more
efficient use of bandwidth,..."

Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they
read the text portion of the message. So what's the difference? My
news reader does not download ANY attachment unless I tell it to.
That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had
an attachment.

Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in news:t33bo0pd9u207t09hr1vo362bcgr6sr8j2@
4ax.com:
The fact that we cannot include clarifying
imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous.


So ... JUST POST IT.

--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.
Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:49:14 +1100, "david epsom dot com dot au"
<david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:

But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can
copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C

(david)

Using Windows XP Professional SP2 I am not able to select or copy
ANYTHING from most error boxes, especially the ones produced by ANY
version of Access. This is ANOTHER exasperating thing that I failed
to comment on. Thanks for reminding me.


Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to
select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus.
Nov 13 '05 #12

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.


Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a wonder
if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-)
Nov 13 '05 #13

P: n/a
> Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they
I use Outlook Express 6. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do.
But I find that if I hit a header that is attached to
a message which turns out to include an attachment,
changing groups will abort the download.

(david)

"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:t3********************************@4ax.com... On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:54:09 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
.

Nov 13 '05 #14

P: n/a
In message <t3********************************@4ax.com>, Lauren Wilson
<???@???.???> writes

On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus
posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image,
well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved in
two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to simply post
an image here as an attachment.
I don't think anyone else has pointed out that many news servers
automatically drop posts that have binary attachments except in
designated binaries newsgroups. You may succeed in posting the message
but there is no guarantee that anyone will see it.
I don't HAVE a web site that I can
use to post such images and by the time I go to the trouble of setting
one up just for that purpose, I could have solved the problem, myself
several times over. The fact that we cannot include clarifying
imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous. However, I
understand why it is not allowed -- because everyone is fearful of
opening attachments and that fear is driven by the criminal behavior
of a tiny minority of vicious, despicable human beings. So, we now
have a perfectly wonderful mechanism for accurate communication on
harmless subjects that is ruined by criminals who do not even deserve
the common human decency of due process.
The ban on binary attachments to non-binary newsgroups predates the
concerns over viruses in images.

Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been the
case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it
to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only those who want
to see the image will download it. And, of course, it's a more
efficient use of bandwidth,..."

Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they
read the text portion of the message. So what's the difference? My
news reader does not download ANY attachment unless I tell it to.
That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had
an attachment.


If you successfully post a message with an attachment it will be copied
to every peer newsserver around the world. Many people do use online
newsreaders that only download headers. I use an offline reader that
downloads every message unless it triggers a killfile rule, in which
case it rejects the whole message. If I find that people are starting to
attach images I will modify the kill rules to reject posts with
attachments. In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds
binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group.

--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.

Nov 13 '05 #15

P: n/a
What's top posting and non-snippers. (vbg)

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:41***********************@news.zen.co.uk...
David W. Fenton wrote:
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.


Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a wonder
if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-)

Nov 13 '05 #16

P: n/a
Bernard Peek <ba*@shrdlu.com> wrote in news:qF**************@shrdlu.com:
In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds
binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group.


--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.

Nov 13 '05 #17

P: n/a
LOL

"Lyle Fairfield" <Lo******@FFDBA.Com> wrote:
"OH MY" Bernard Peek <ba*@shrdlu.com> wrote:
In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds
binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group.


Nov 13 '05 #18

P: n/a
Trevor Best wrote:

Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to
select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus.


An update on that, Interaction.MsgBox allows ^C to copy the text but
Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-(
Nov 13 '05 #19

P: n/a
> Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-(

Time to dump Eval("MsgBox()"). We use r_Msgbox, which leads
to a private function which displays a form -- and the MORE
button allows you to capture the text of the message.

On the other hand, if MS ever correctly and usefully exposes
Application.Msgbox, we would probably drift back to that.

BTW, to my disgust I recently found that the documented
behaviour for unhandled errors is totally ignored when running
from an MDE. You get the 'eval' msgbox, not Interaction.MsgBox.
(If you are running /runtime, you get the 'eval' msgbox,
instead of an orderly shutdown). And if you are using Raise
to customise the message, your custom message is lost.

(david)

"Trev@Work" <no.email@please> wrote in message
news:41**********************@news.easynet.co.uk.. .
Trevor Best wrote:

Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to
select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus.


An update on that, Interaction.MsgBox allows ^C to copy the text but
Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-(

Nov 13 '05 #20

P: n/a
rkc

"Lyle Fairfield" <Lo******@FFDBA.Com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.4...

A rebel without a cause.
Nov 13 '05 #21

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:t3********************************@4ax.com:
On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus
posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image,
well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved
in two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to
simply post an image here as an attachment. . .


If the world revolves around you, then that's a valid choice.

You can probably imagine that I dispute the basic premise of that
formulation.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #22

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:t3********************************@4ax.com:
Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been
the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than
attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only
those who want to see the image will download it. And, of course,
it's a more efficient use of bandwidth,..."

Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if
they read the text portion of the message. So what's the
difference? My news reader does not download ANY attachment
unless I tell it to. That does not prevent me from reading the
text of the message that had an attachment.


1. If you attach it to the message, the incoded imgage has to be
distributed to every news server that carries CDMA. If there are
100,000 news servers carrying this newsgroup, that's 100,000 copies,
vs. 1 copy from putting it on a website.

2. If you don't have technical knowledge about these kinds of
issues, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to declare your judgments
about how things should or should not be done.

In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image
attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you
disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that
prohibition.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #23

P: n/a
Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:41***********************@news.zen.co.uk:
David W. Fenton wrote:
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And,
of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.


Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a
wonder if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-)


Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of
lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #24

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image
attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you
disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that
prohibition.


Only stupid people enforce stupid rules.
Nov 13 '05 #25

P: n/a
John why don't you take your head out of your ass for a minute... I bet
you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally.

--
Stephen Lebans
http://www.lebans.com
Access Code, Tips and Tricks
Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit.
"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2u*************@uni-berlin.de...
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image
attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you
disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that
prohibition.


Only stupid people enforce stupid rules.


Nov 13 '05 #26

P: n/a
david epsom dot com dot au wrote:
Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they

I use Outlook Express 6. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do.
But I find that if I hit a header that is attached to
a message which turns out to include an attachment,
changing groups will abort the download.


An alternative to that, familiar interface without a security hole every
two weeks is http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

Good spam filtering on mail, not sure how it goes with those attachments
as I don't use it for binary groups and I haven't noticed anything big
in this group (I'm on BB BTW).
Nov 13 '05 #27

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:t3********************************@4ax.com:

On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus
posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image,
well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved
in two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to
simply post an image here as an attachment. . .

If the world revolves around you, then that's a valid choice.


Of course it doesn't revolve around Lauren, it revolves around me. Want
proof? Take food for example, it has no taste until I put it in MY mouth
+ anything interesting that ever happened to me, happened while I was in
the room. (Cat).

Nov 13 '05 #28

P: n/a
Craig Alexander Morrison wrote:
What's top posting and non-snippers. (vbg)

LOL! at least your sig sep works :-)
Nov 13 '05 #29

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:41***********************@news.zen.co.uk:

David W. Fenton wrote:
case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And,
of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
encoded.


Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a
wonder if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-)

Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of
lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads.


At least it may be relevant content.
Nov 13 '05 #30

P: n/a
david epsom dot com dot au wrote:
Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-(

Time to dump Eval("MsgBox()"). We use r_Msgbox, which leads
to a private function which displays a form -- and the MORE
button allows you to capture the text of the message.


I may have to start doing that, I use Eval to enable alternative
alphabets. A form would pose more options as well, e.g. a timeout
autoresponse could be useful in some circumstances.
On the other hand, if MS ever correctly and usefully exposes
Application.Msgbox, we would probably drift back to that.
Is there a difference between interaction. and application.? I haven't
tried it.
BTW, to my disgust I recently found that the documented
behaviour for unhandled errors is totally ignored when running
from an MDE. You get the 'eval' msgbox, not Interaction.MsgBox.
(If you are running /runtime, you get the 'eval' msgbox,
instead of an orderly shutdown). And if you are using Raise
to customise the message, your custom message is lost.


nice.
Nov 13 '05 #31

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78:
Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of
lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads.


Let's see what that order of magnitude is.

--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.
Nov 13 '05 #32

P: n/a
"Stephen Lebans" <Fo****************************************@linval id.com>
wrote in message news:X%**********************@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
John why don't you take your head out of your ass for a minute... I bet
you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally.


The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif

Oh, I know, it'll lead on to other things right? Before you know it we'll
have hardcore streaming porn, heroin and crack cocaine, right? Wrong,
actually. No-one here has yet given me any reason, (let alone a convincing
reason), why the sql server groups don't have problems, even though they
don't "enforce" all the silly rules. What they do have are the brightest
minds giving the best answers to the toughest questions. The S/N ration is
vastly better than that in c.d.m.a. Go, as the Americans would say, figure.

I'll leave it to everyone else to decide which of us has his head up his
arse.
Nov 13 '05 #33

P: n/a
> Is there a difference between interaction. and application.?
tried it.
No, there /is no application.msgbox/. But there should be.
Using Eval to get the access msgbox was a kludge in
Access 2000: In Access 2003 they have no excuse at all.

(david)

"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:41**********************@news.zen.co.uk... david epsom dot com dot au wrote:
Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-(

Time to dump Eval("MsgBox()"). We use r_Msgbox, which leads
to a private function which displays a form -- and the MORE
button allows you to capture the text of the message.


I may have to start doing that, I use Eval to enable alternative
alphabets. A form would pose more options as well, e.g. a timeout
autoresponse could be useful in some circumstances.
On the other hand, if MS ever correctly and usefully exposes
Application.Msgbox, we would probably drift back to that.


Is there a difference between interaction. and application.? I haven't
tried it.
BTW, to my disgust I recently found that the documented
behaviour for unhandled errors is totally ignored when running
from an MDE. You get the 'eval' msgbox, not Interaction.MsgBox.
(If you are running /runtime, you get the 'eval' msgbox,
instead of an orderly shutdown). And if you are using Raise
to customise the message, your custom message is lost.


nice.

Nov 13 '05 #34

P: n/a
"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2u*************@uni-berlin.de:
The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif


But if everyone does, the group becomes useless.

Never heard of the tragedy of the commons, eh?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #35

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2u*************@uni-berlin.de:
The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif


But if everyone does, the group becomes useless.

Never heard of the tragedy of the commons, eh?


No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules, even if
they are clear, easy to find, and easy to abide by. He wants things his way,
just like some others here.
Nov 13 '05 #36

P: n/a
Lyle Fairfield <Lo******@FFDBA.Com> wrote in news:Xns95953E2957D9FFDBA@
130.133.1.4:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78:
Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of
lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads.


Let's see what that order of magnitude is.


--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.
Nov 13 '05 #37

P: n/a
Lyle Fairfield <Lo******@FFDBA.Com> wrote in news:Xns959624AEEB0CCFFDBA@
216.221.81.119:

begin 644 ErrorMessage.png
Attachment decoded: ErrorMessage.png
`
end
Well, XNews reports 111 lines, same number as the text message I quote
below:

When I save these, the binary's size is reported by Windows XP Explorer
(NTFS) as 8KB, and the text's as 6KB.

Does this mean "bandwidth" was burdened with an additional 2KB for the
binary? Or is it something else?

How long does "bandwidth" take to deal with 111 lines, 8 kb anyway?

And is the bandwidth that carries CDMA the same bandwidth that carries the
binary newsgroups? If so, will that bandwidth notice that extra two kb?

And the text message and the binary, is one clearer than another?

And of those who caution against binaries, do they generally try to express
themselves briefly, or do some (often) go on

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

not only within a posting, but prolonging threads to show that they have
never ever ever, been wrong, much as the thread and common sense so
indicate, even if they have to change the nature of the subject of the
thread?

OK here's the other 111 line jobbie:
***** begin quote *****
MG,

Here is the SQL code view of the paramQueryDate query object in my
Access 2000 database:

SELECT TestInfo.TestType, TestInfo.Returned, TestInfo.Expired,
TestInfo.DateTestReturned, TestInfo.SpecialtyType
FROM TestInfo
WHERE (((TestInfo.DateTestReturned)<=[Enter Date]));
The <=[Enter Date] parameter is in the Criteria line.

Repeating here for your convenience, the dcounts in the detail
section:
Academic, Distance Ed, and Placement textbox dcount codes are
identical except for [TestType]number:

=DCount("*","paramQueryDate","[TestType]=1 AND [Returned]=true
AND[Expired] = false and [DateTestReturned] <= [Enter Date]")

The textbox below these simply sums the total of the 3 textbox values.
There is nothing in the section footer. The textboxes with the
dcounts are just placed in the detail section.

I tried removing the [DateTestReturned] field from the 3rd parameter
in the dcount code above, but the data still repeats in the report.

I thought this would be an easy report to set up since it's identical
to the one that works perfectly. Didn't realize specifying a
parameter would be so problematic!

MGFoster <me@privacy.com> wrote in message news:<06Ggd.6464$kM.1456
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Can you post the SQL of the query? My guess about the query's columns:

SELECT [Type], Count(*) As TypeCount

or

SELECT [Type], Sum(Students) As TypeSum

My guess is: you are duplicating the results of the query w/ the
DCount() function as the controls' ControlSource, or, your query is
retrieving too many records 'cuz of bad design (joins are wrong, or you
should be using DISTINCTROW or GROUP BY).

Your report's Detail section should hold the [Type] and Count/Sum
fields. The "Total" field should be in a section footer.

If you want 2 columns on the report you will have to indicate that in
the File > Print Setup > Columns (tab) > Column Layout (section). Read
the Access help article "Set page setup options for printing" and
"Customize a multiple-column report" for more info on multi-column
reports.

--
MGFoster:::mgf00 <at> earthlink <decimal-point> net
Oakland, CA (USA)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBQYMuDYechKqOuFEgEQJLIgCgxAx6tLDU6gN+nuVeQ+SBAX oi6A8AoLmh
dBdEta8sFkMzI8EAU+5iRXTc
=Mp1+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Conklin wrote:
Thanks MG for responding to my post. I changed the first parameter to
an asterisk as you suggested but got the same results.

To clarify about the "report printing the report." The complete
reported values (in print preview) take up about 1/3 of the page. All
the values print twice on each page. So everything in the example below
will repeat twice on the same page. If there are 80 records (tests)
being evaluated, all the information below will appear twice on 40
pages. It looks like this and just repeats, in this case, 80 times:

Academic 40 Pending 0
Distance Ed 15 Expired 5
Placement 20 Total Tests Submitted 80
Total 75

The records are checked in the text boxes only by the dcount function,
nothing else, no vb code.

What I have now is:

paramQueryDate for the record source; <=[Enter Date] is the parameter.

dcounts for the textboxes, all of which are similar to:
=DCount("*","paramQueryDate","[TestType]=1 AND [Returned]=true AND
[Expired] = false and [DateTestReturned] <= [Enter Date]")

I have another report object that this is based on. It's nearly
identical except that there is no record source and no parameter query
(based on a table) and it works perfectly. It simply dcounts all the
records (there is no date option like the one I'm working on). When I
place the table it looks to in the record source, I get the same
repeating data like I'm getting now. If I remove the record source for
the report object you're helping me with, the report pops up immediately with #error in the text boxes. This makes sense and I understand why
this occurs, dcount is not seeing the parameter it needs (the query does not actually run from the 2nd dcount parameter).

Do I need a filter here that will present me with a date parameter? If
so, could you give me some direction?

***** end quote *****
--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.
Nov 13 '05 #38

P: n/a
Not only that, Stephen, but having ones head in a protected position can
save one from drinking through the night, and, while inebriated, posting
attacks which he or she cannot justify, and is unwilling to address or
discuss, either "only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit", or by
private e-mail.

John is a contributor of high-quality information and help here; I think he
does not deserve this rudeness.

Did I ever mention to you that I find it astounding that a person on his
website can provide a procedure taken from the post of someone whom he
insults, and to whose private e-mail and public postings he will not reply?
"Stephen Lebans" <Fo****************************************@linval id.com>
wrote in news:X%**********************@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
John why don't you take your head out of your ass for a minute... I bet
you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally.

--
Stephen Lebans
http://www.lebans.com
Access Code, Tips and Tricks
Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit.

Nov 13 '05 #39

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in
news:z5_hd.10883$vB.4276@trnddc03:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2u*************@uni-berlin.de:
> The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif


But if everyone does, the group becomes useless.

Never heard of the tragedy of the commons, eh?


No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules, even
if they are clear, easy to find, and easy to abide by. He wants things
his way, just like some others here.


Larry

This kind of inuuendo and personal attack carried out by you and David, and
abetted by a few others, in the past, resulted in our being saddled with
the contributions of XMVP and his aliases for much too long a time. Please,
stop.
It's especially insulting for A & B to trade insults to C. At least,
confront C directly.
Nov 13 '05 #40

P: n/a
"Lyle Fairfield" wrote
Larry

This kind of inuuendo and personal attack
carried out by you and David, and
abetted by a few others, in the past, resulted
in our being saddled with the contributions
of XMVP and his aliases for much too long
a time. Please, stop.
It's especially insulting for A & B to trade
insults to C. At least, confront C directly.


Lyle,

I won't trade insults with you because you are clearly operating at a
handicap.

Larry
Nov 13 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Anonymous Sender" wrote
Spoken like true Texas white trash.
But, at least, posting under my own name (as, to his credit, was Lyle). To
its discredit, this is from the header of "Anonymous Sender"'s post:
From: Anonymous Sender
<an*******@remailer.metacolo.com>
Comments: This message did not originate from
the Sender address above. It was remailed auto-
matically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use
to the remailer administrator at
<ab***@remailer.metacolo.com>.
X-No-Archive: Yes


I give its pronoucements all the weight due a troll who hides behind an
anonymizer and uses "X-No-Archive: Yes" to try to cover its tracks.
Nov 13 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:30:31 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
news:t3********************************@4ax.com :
Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been
the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than
attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only
those who want to see the image will download it. And, of course,
it's a more efficient use of bandwidth,..."

Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment
here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if
they read the text portion of the message. So what's the
difference? My news reader does not download ANY attachment
unless I tell it to. That does not prevent me from reading the
text of the message that had an attachment.
1. If you attach it to the message, the incoded imgage has to be
distributed to every news server that carries CDMA. If there are
100,000 news servers carrying this newsgroup, that's 100,000 copies,
vs. 1 copy from putting it on a website.


Of course. I foolishly looked at this only from the posting
perspective. Thanks for reminding me of the server side of things.

However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images? If
it is, what about the groups that are almost EXCLUSIVELY images?
Surely they suffer the same problem of replication.
2. If you don't have technical knowledge about these kinds of
issues, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to declare your judgments
about how things should or should not be done.
Oh I understand the technology. It ain't rocket science. I just
overlooked one aspect of it in my earlier post -- probably because I
never work with the server end of this system.
In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image
attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you
disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that
prohibition.


What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security,
or something else?
Nov 13 '05 #43

P: n/a

Oh my!

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 06:55:09 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<an*******@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
Lauren, a word from the wise. Mr. Fenton is a permanent fixture here.
The old farts around here are used to a certain style of presenting
inquiries and conversing. Mr. Fenton is particularly sensitive and
reactive to posting styles that in his mind are "off". Something
about your post irks him and he goes off on your "vehemence".

Before you ever accept a single word of criticism from the likes
of Mr. Fenton, you may wish to consider what he himself has posted
to usenet, excerpted below with google archive links for verification.

If you are wondering why this is an anonymous message, it is
for self-protection. Some goons visited me a while back and
threatened physical harm to my person in connection with certain posts
made to this group and alleged to have originated from me.
I have since moved. I am confident you understand my
need for anonymity -- it's a matter of personal safety.

Now for some of Fenton's own little usenet jewels:

"The boy was the "active" participant in the entire interaction,
with no real exposed vulnerability (aside from whatever might be
implied by taking my cock in his mouth)."
source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

"The images of boys' bare butts stayed with me as fantasy material for years."
source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

"Also last night, a very, very cute young guy came into my room (he
was one of those types who wraps the towel around his waist and it
somehow ends up suspended about halfway down the round globes of
his luscious bubble butt; ARRGGHH!!), and I smile at him. I would
do anything he asked me to do, but I'm assuming, given the role I
was projecting, that he's a dickhound (at least for now), so I
offer him my cock, which he strokes and then bends over and takes
into his mouth. But I guess something didn't feel right to him, and
after a couple of strokes (just enough to get my dick good and
wet), he departs."
source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

---

---

In article <t3********************************@4ax.com>
Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:54:09 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
>Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in
>news:go********************************@4ax.com :
>
>> It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking
>> Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is
>> no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus
>> writers.
>
>Sorry, but I don't understand why this is a problem.
>
>It's *where* you put the capture image that was in question, and
>it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page
>rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former
>case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of
>course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not
>encoded.
>
>If you mean, however, that somehow screen captures have been
>rendered impossible by virus writers, then I've completely
>misunderstood.
>
>If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be
>vastly misplaced.


My vehemence is NOT directed at anyone in this group -- unless, of
course, some of the sub-human slime who write and/or distribute
viruses or spyware are lurking here. It was simply an expression of
extreme frustration over the fact that the entire Internet experience
is slowly being rendered a nightmare by such people -- and that a
perfect example of it is expressed in one of the responses to this
very thread.


. . . etc.


Nov 13 '05 #44

P: n/a
Lauren Wilson wrote:
Oh my!


Attn David, Lauren's top posting and non snippage, 89 lines, Lyle's gif
in the same thread, 21 lines. Order of magnitude? :-)

Nov 13 '05 #45

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:z5_hd.10883$vB.4276@trnddc03...

No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules,

I don't *like* rules. I've never met anyone who does actually. Are you
telling me that you do, in fact, derive joy therefrom? If yes this would
explain a few things.

Semantics really. People don't *like* rukes per se, they tolerate them
because of the beneifts they bring. When rules and rule-keeping get out of
hand then the costs outweigh the benefits. And when rules become out-dated
they should be changed or scrapped.

Did you see this story?
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/70/01_95_m.html Here's a rule that had
a good intent, but became ridiculous when applied to the letter, without
regard for any trivialities like common sense. It's also a case of political
correctness run amock, and the two are closely related in my book.

Anyway Larry, to sum up, no I don't "hate" all rules, neither am I an
anarchist if that's what you were implying. Out of the 35 or so "rules" n
the FAQ, there are only two or three with which I disagree. And even there,
it's not so much a case of disagreeing with the rule as wishing people would
stop trying to "enforce" them all the time, for every sngle infraction. It
makes us look like a bunch of kids in cdma - as opposed to the grown-ups in
the other database groups.

--
btw If you're really that concerned with bandwidth, there's one suggestion
in the faq you might want to start looking at more closely. That's the one
that tells you how to deal with a troll.
Nov 13 '05 #46

P: n/a
> However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images?

The PRIMARY reason is because these newsgroups date
to a time when many people (and servers) had dial-up
connections and small hard disks.

It is STILL the case that my (alternative) news
provider only provides 36 hours of live postings,
and does not host ANY binary groups.

Some people will also wish to be careful about binaries
of any sort, including (because of the demonstrated
viral exploits) image binaries.

But even if there were no reasons for not posting
binaries, the fact is that this is a non-binary group
by agreement: people read this group on the understanding
that it is a non-binary group, and hope for your courtesy.

(david)

"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:mv********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:30:31 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security,
or something else?

Nov 13 '05 #47

P: n/a
rkc

"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2u*************@uni-berlin.de...
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:z5_hd.10883$vB.4276@trnddc03...

No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules,

<snip snip snip>
btw If you're really that concerned with bandwidth, there's one suggestion
in the faq you might want to start looking at more closely. That's the one
that tells you how to deal with a troll.


Yes. Please.
Nov 13 '05 #48

P: n/a
The voice of reason...well said David. Looking back I wish had posted a
response similiar to yours instead of telling John to take his head our
of his ass.

--
Stephen Lebans
http://www.lebans.com
Access Code, Tips and Tricks
Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit.
"david epsom dot com dot au" <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote in message
news:41***********************@news.syd.swiftdsl.c om.au...
However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images?


The PRIMARY reason is because these newsgroups date
to a time when many people (and servers) had dial-up
connections and small hard disks.

It is STILL the case that my (alternative) news
provider only provides 36 hours of live postings,
and does not host ANY binary groups.

Some people will also wish to be careful about binaries
of any sort, including (because of the demonstrated
viral exploits) image binaries.

But even if there were no reasons for not posting
binaries, the fact is that this is a non-binary group
by agreement: people read this group on the understanding
that it is a non-binary group, and hope for your courtesy.

(david)

"Lauren Wilson" <???@???.???> wrote in message
news:mv********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:30:31 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security, or something else?



Nov 13 '05 #49

P: n/a
If you disagree with some or all of the rules, or provisions of the charter,
there is a defined process to try to change them. Thus far, you have not
seen fit to initiate that process. I fail to see why you think it
appropriate to provide support for Our Resident Troll by wanting to argue
about the rules and encouraging people to ignore them.
btw If you're really that concerned
with bandwidth, there's one suggestion
in the faq you might want to start looking
at more closely. That's the one that tells
you how to deal with a troll.


You have certainly been around this newsgroup long enough to know that the
approach to which you refer does not succeed with our Resident Troll (who I
take to be another incarnation of Don P Mellon). Thus I take this as just
another snipe from you.

If you had forgotten that no approach has kept Our Resident Troll from
continuing to visit the newsgroup to slander David by implying that David's
old post indicate criminal activity, not just sexual orientation, then this
is a reminder.

If you just don't care, you are allying yourself with the slanderer -- and I
would hope that you wouldn't want to do that.

There are those of us who feel it is proper to use the headers of those
anonymized messages to show new users here that "Anonymous Sender" isn't the
handle of someone warning them out of the goodness of his (its) heart. And,
I suspect that, whether you think that appropriate or not, there will be
some who will continue to do so. That, at least, is not prohibited by the
rules and charter.
Nov 13 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.