What method do YOU use to create your printable personal family calendar?

In article ,
R.Wieser wrote:
[Due to a 3 xpost maximum, freeware and Linux are snipped]

For family-oriented stuff like " birthdays and anniversaries" ?

Use a birthday calendar.

No need to involve a computer in this. /Especially not/ when all you do is
print it out and stick it to a wall somewhere anyway.

I think what AGH is really shooting for here is the idea of a large
extended family, geographically distributed. Hence, the idea of a central
database, that everyone can access (and, at least in theory, everyone can
edit).

That requires a computer.

P.S. I think my posting host limits me to 6 groups total. (FWIW)

--
Just remember:

Pence is all the evil, with none of the crazy.

Kenny,

I think what AGH is really shooting for here is the idea of a large
extended family, geographically distributed.

I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.

Also, there is absolutily nothing in his threadstarter that points into that
direction.

Hence, the idea of a central database, that everyone
can access (and, at least in theory, everyone can edit).

He did not say that either. The ONLY thing he mentions is that it must
be(come) a hardcopy. How, from what and by whom ? Well, your guess is as
good as mine - or as AGH's for that matter. :-)

And by the way: "No logins of any kind". Hard to share a non-local database
(or anything else) that way (it even rules out email :-) ).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.



It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

--
Marshall: 10/22/51
Jessica: 4/4/79

Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Kenny McCormack wrote:

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

Usenet spelling cops are A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S.

Did I get that spelled right?

Kenny,

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

Another suggestion: if you can't stand the message than you shouldn't try to
redeem yourself by attacking the messenger. Cause that is all your above
pettynes looks like I'm afraid. :-(

But, just go help AGH and find out for yourself what kind of person he is
and how he treats people - either when you got a different idea and want to
discuss it or after you've given him all you had to give (presented on a
silver platter, otherwise it won't do) and he takes of with the proceeds.
Go ahead. No skin off of my back.

Don't complain I didn't try to warn you though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article ,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Whoosh!

You totally missed the point, but I won't bother explaining it to you.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Security

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed it as a
typo. The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating
the writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo. I did
notice it the first time, but chose not to comment. FWIW: as a verb,
"loose" means "release" (as in "loose the dogs on him!"), whereas "lose"
means to misplace, be unable to find, etcetera. Said to inform/educate,
not to criticise any one person.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut.

John,

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Not quite. I'm actually Dutch, and only learned English in school starting
when I was 12. Though because I was a voragious reader I ended up with a
nice range of words.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating the
writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo

Spot on.

I even seem to remember having halted and thought about it as being a
problematic word when I was writing my reply. Alas, I either still did
chose (same problem here, single or double "o" - and yes, this time I
googled it :-) ) the wrong word, or my muscle memory typed the second "o"
regardless. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

(Probably better send replies by email, as this has nothing to do with
Windows!)

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Not quite. I'm actually Dutch, and only learned English in school starting
when I was 12. Though because I was a voragious reader I ended up with a
nice range of words.

You speak it like a native. (Well, not quite: natives make more
mistakes!)

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

The text in question was "I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH
actually wants - you will than always loose, as he doesn't even know
himself."

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

The "than" should have been "then". Now, how to remember that -
difficult! I think 'if it's where German (and Dutch?) would have "dann",
English will have "then"' might work. (But I'm then left wondering how
to decide when English _would_ have "than".)

[Re-reading the text, the "to" should have been omitted too - "guess
what", not "guess to what". Possibly "guess as to what" would be OK.
English is certainly difficult!]

The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating the
writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo

Spot on.

I even seem to remember having halted and thought about it as being a
problematic word when I was writing my reply. Alas, I either still did
chose (same problem here, single or double "o" - and yes, this time I
googled it :-) ) the wrong word, or my muscle memory typed the second "o"
regardless. :-\

[I fear you chose the wrong one. Though it's quite complex grammar! If
you'd left out the "did", "chose" would have been correct! But use of
"did" _was_ a good choice! ("I did choose" = "I chose".)]

(-:. It's nice to find someone who _does_ think such things matter.
(Email me if you like with any further queries; I enjoy the subject, and
my mother taught EFL in Germany, so I'm familiar with many of the
problems.)

You and other anglophiles will enjoy
http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html, and might
http://www.theinterpretersfriend.org/misc/humr/eng.html (though it's
from an American viewpoint).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Parkinson: "What caused your conversion to women - was it the love of a good
one?" George Melly: "No the love of several bad ones" (Lizbuff in UMRA
'01-4-25)

"R.Wieser" wrote:

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

I don't think I've ever seen you use "then", always "than" sometimes
correctly, often not.

"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or "rather than
this". Otherwise use "Then" when something follows; e.g. "if this is
true then do that" or when talking about a particular time: "it
happened then".

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Yes, he is, just not a native speaker of *English*! :-)

As Rudy explained, he's Dutch. So am I.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed it as a
typo. The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating
the writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo. I did
notice it the first time, but chose not to comment. FWIW: as a verb,
"loose" means "release" (as in "loose the dogs on him!"), whereas "lose"
means to misplace, be unable to find, etcetera. Said to inform/educate,
not to criticise any one person.

FWIW, for me the than/then one is quite easy and I hardly ever get it
wrong. The loose/lose one requires more thought/attention, especially if
loose is not a verb.

But all of this is moot. Apparently Mr. McCormack's brilliant comment
whooshed over all (four so far) our heads, we "totally missed the point"
and aren't worthy of an explanation.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
(Probably better send replies by email, as this has nothing to do with
Windows!)

Considering the OP, *anything* can only be an improvement! :-)

[...]

The "than" should have been "then". Now, how to remember that -
difficult! I think 'if it's where German (and Dutch?) would have "dann",
English will have "then"' might work. (But I'm then left wondering how
to decide when English _would_ have "than".)

The 'problem' stems from the fact that Dutch often uses the same word
('dan') for both than and then (but not always, see last example below).

Borrowing Apd's examples:

"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or "rather than
this". Otherwise use "Then" when something follows; e.g. "if this is
true then do that" or when talking about a particular time: "it
happened then".

In Dutch, these would be (loosely :-) translated) "groter dan 1" [1],
"anders dan dit" [2], "als dit waar is dan doe dat". But in the last
example, we *do* have an equivalent ('toen') of then: "het gebeurde
toen".

[...]

[1] '1' to prevent use of Dutch diacriticals.
[2] "anders" is not quite right, but not relevant for the discission.

John,

You speak it like a native. (Well, not quite: natives make more mistakes!)

:-) Thanks.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid [snip]

The "than" should have been "then".

I somehow already got that feeling, but even when trying it out in my mind I
had no clue which one was the correct one. :-\ I guess I have to do
some more "X vs Y" googleing-and-reading.

Possibly "guess as to what" would be OK.

That is what I wanted to express, but forgot the exact phrase (the "as").

English is certainly difficult!]

Hah! Than you never tried Dutch! It sometimes seems we have mor
exceptions to a rule than stuff that falls within it. :-)

But yes. Not because of the language, but because non face-to-face
communications causes subtile "/what/ did he just say ?" feedback to get
lost - and with it a signal that I should re-evaluate what I just said.

[I fear you chose the wrong one

Shucks. Now you say it I see that I did (and how). Stupid. Lost sight of
the whole line while focussing on the word.

(-:. It's nice to find someone who _does_ think such things matter.

I do. Not enough to make me anywhere near to a grammar nazi, but (maybe
just) because I want to get a message across as clear as I can.

Thanks for the corrections. Now lets hope I will remember them ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser