form border style question

Colin McGuire

Hi, is there a way to show a form without a titlebar (and therefore no
control box/minimize box/title etc) but still have it appear looking
like 3D?

The property FormBorderStyle to None - this gives no titlebar etc but
the form borders don't look 3D.

In case I haven't explained what I want well, I want a form that looks
like a button with no text (ie a form with the lovely 3D borders but
no titlebar etc).

Thank you
Colin

Nov 20 '05

Subscribe Post Reply

104

5409

Cor

Fergus,

|| Fergus _shall_ IMO accept Absolute language again. Fergus shall not.

Please don't blaim us that we make faults in writing English.
You know how angry (false) I can become about that.
Just take what we want to say. You are inteligent enough for that.

The meaning in Dutch and I supose German too for the equivalent for the
English "Shall" is "Will" if it is in the second and third person. In my
Country strange is, that "must" can in the the western part mean "can do"
and in the other parts always "have to do". I can tell you that I have had a
lot of problems with that.

When Herfried say something like "must" or "have to" then he probably
commands you to do that. With "shall" it would not have to be that

So if Herfried, writes "Shall" it has not to be, that he ment that in the
English way, maybe just the different of meaning between 2 almost the same
German words.

Like you maybe remember my argument and argumenting.

Cor

Nov 20 '05 #51

Fergus Cooney

Hi Herfried,

I'd recommend reading this whole post through before you start answering
any of the points raised.
|| > Are you able to agree that this restriction to a
|| > single character is a limitation?
||
|| No. It's not a restriction. It makes everything easier.

I didn't ask about 'easy'. And it's <easy within a context> not just
'easy'.

You are proposing as a <fact> that '>' is the string that must be used.
You are saying that out of all possible strings in the Universe, <only one> is
to be used for quoting in this context.

If that's not a 'restriction' and 'limitation', then please tell me what
these words mean.

I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with because I gave you
a definition. Lol. You disagreed with a definition.

============================================

|| > Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
|| > that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
||
|| That doesn't make any sense. There is one character (">") that is used
|| to specify the quoting level.

I didn't ask whether '>' was a character that is used in quoting.
PhatTesco

Are you having difficulty with the English in this sentence?

I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with. You chose to 'not
understand' it. :-(

============================================

|| > Can you agree that it would be useful if newsreaders <could>
|| > treat my quoting as 'logical markup'?
||
|| It would be useful but most won't be able to do that.

I didn't ask anything about whether newsreaders <can> do it. We know that
they can't. However...

[Falls over] An agreement! :-)

============================================

|| How should a newsreader know if "||" adds one or two levels?

There'e a clue in the fact that it is actually ' || ' and not just
'||'. In other words the general pattern is (as mentioned before, and again
before that - did you read it, were you paying attention?)
Quote ::= [White space]+ QuotChar | QuotString [White space]+

This is the 'general pattern' that was mentioned in the question above
that you 'didn't understand'. I hope this is clear here, and that it sheds
some light on the meaning of that question. In fact I'll risk asking it again.

Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
============================================

|| > There was a lot of my previous post that you didn't respond to.
|| > I'm wondering whether that was because you reluctantly had to
|| > agree and couldn't bring yourself to say so.
||
|| I didn't respond because I know you wouldn't have understood it.
|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.

Over the years, a tradition has grown in the world of newsgroups. A
convention formed out of the mists and became partially (some would say
completely) solid. The convention is to use the character '>' when quoting
text from previous posts to which the current poster is responding. The choice
of '>' was almost arbitrary - it just seemed that more and more people came to
use it. Or maybe it was that the writers of the newsreaders at the time made
that momentous decision. Whichever way it was, '>' has become ubiquitous.

Developers of newsreaders, being aware of this 'standard', added
functionality to their newsreaders which could take advantage of this
<tendancy>. Some had the splendid idea of determining who was speaking, and
who was quoting the speaker and responding, and who was responding, in turn,
to that, etc.

With the identities separated, the opportunity was there to <use> that
knowledge. One idea involved colouring the text of the different speakers.
This had the effect of clarifying the to-and-fro within a conversation, and
was of <tremendous utility>.

Other developers had the idea of doing word counts on the text of each
speaker. Others analysed the use of syntax and semantics in the text.
Unfortunately, such use of identity separation was not applauded with anything
like the acclaim that their developers hoped for.

One snag with this wonderful idea was that newsreader developers were too
lazy, or too unimaginative, or too arrogant to consider that people may not
want to use the '>' character. Some may want to use '|', some may want little
boxy graphics. some may even go as far as using <two> (shock horror!!)
characters, such as '||'.

The newsreader developers failed to take this human tendancy for diversity
and imagination into account (these were the standard software developer types
with their heads up their ..) and so they didn't code for a <general pattern>,
they coded for a <single character>.

Thus, when some strange people <did> use non-'standard' quoting strings
(strings that <do>, however, conform to an easily discernible quoting
pattern), the rigidly programmed newsreader software failed to 'understand'
it.

And this was the cause of much strife between these strange,
individualistc non-standard quoters and those with the wonderful (but stupid)
newsreaders that used '>' (and <only> '>') to do identity separation.

============================================

|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.

Are you sure about that? The above was written to expound <your> arguments
and coloured (no pun) with my outlook (no pun). I could, if I had wanted,
written it as if I fervently believed in the viewpoint that it puts forward.

What did I miss, though, surely it must be more than just colouring?

============================================

Herfried, it is a large part of my <life> learning to understand people.
It is of <great> importance to me. Giving full attention to someone else's
thoughts takes practice and a desire to want to do it. I've burned with that
desire. I've done that practice. It is part of the reaon why I am able to
answer some of the almost gibberish queries we get. Questions which other
responders clearly don't understand.

Please don't confuse determination to put forward a viewpoint with lack of
understanding.

============================================

Now - here's the challenge:

Do you understand <my> point of view?
Could you put <my> argument forward?

Regards,
Fergus

Nov 20 '05 #52

Cor

Hi Fergus,

Don't take so much time in this, you're right. If it was a problem, the one
who designed the program had let you have the posibillity to use it. (It
could be if it was an obscure company)

Sorry that it looks in commanding tone, but that is not the meaning.

Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on the way you was used to do.

:-))

Cor

Nov 20 '05 #53

Fergus Cooney

Hi Cor,

I'm not blaming anybody for faulty English. I'm talking about faulty
<logic>. The use of absolute language when arguing <reduces> the strength of
the argument, despite it being so strong in its meaning.

Here's an example

"Nobody can understand a single word of what you are saying"

That's clearly rubbish, isn't it. Let's focus on the 'nobody' and say it's
a lie. Let's look at the part 'a single word' and dispute that too. And that's
enough excuse to dismiss the whole sentence.

"Some people have difficulty understanding what you say on occasion."

Now <that's> a true statement. By being <weaker> in its language, it's
actually <stronger> in a discussion. There are no absolutes to focus on. You
can't dispute 'some' unless you have certain knowledge that there are none.
And, of course, in human matters that is rare.

Both of the above sentences talk about difficulty with language. One risks
failing outright to get its meaning across. The other is difficult to ignore.

Regards,
Fergus

ps. Finally, just to make certain. I used that example, because your post
talks about language and that's where my mind <is> when seeking an example.
It's not intended to be taken as being judgemental of your language, even if,
lol, that second sentence applies. ;-))

Nov 20 '05 #54

Fergus Cooney

Hi Cor,

Ooh, you're on dangerous ground, here. Can't you see that you're standing
between two bulls** with their heads lowered? ROFL.

|| Don't take so much time in this.
|| Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on
|| the way you was used to do.
|| :-))

Not long to go. We are now engaged in the fine art of arguing. The content
is partly irrelevant. Any moment one of us is going to say EOT, but I'm not
sure who - Herfried likes to have the last word on most matters. ;-))

[There's a real argument, :-((, with someone else. That, I fear, is not a
diversion as this one is.]

|| Sorry that it looks in commanding tone,

And just who the hell do you think you are talking to me that way!!..
[rants and raves for several minutes.]

|| but that is not the meaning.

Cor, you are too much of a gentleman. I would have to try hard to take
offense at your words. I've seen your picture (at least I hope it was you!!) -
I imagine that twinkle and that smile when I read your posts. ;-))

Regards,
Fergus.

** Bulls, or just a couple of guys talking bullocks.- take your pick, Lol.

Nov 20 '05 #55

Similar topics