How do you edit an icon in one of the Windows system DLLs?

"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:35:14 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

So, where is that rampant evidence ?

Hi Rudy,

This isn't for you, since you're incapable of ever adding value.
o To any thread topic

Originally Posted by me

Face it kiddo, you are a blow-hard. Claiming all kinds of things, but zero
follow-thru when rebutted.

Rudy Wieser _still_ can't, after more than a half dozen posts,
add a _single_ iota of added on-topic technical value to this
thread topic.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Alan,

While it's clear the OP spent a lot of time annotating detailed
screenshot
o For example... https://i.postimg.cc/NFhjn4cd/icon04.jpg

*How many screenshots did you post to add value to this thread, Rudy?*

Hint: none

So the only way to add value to a thread is to post a screenshot?

No, thats not it. He's just trying to move goalposts from "purposely
helpfull suggestions" to something else, as he lost the argument to the
former.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-the-Goalposts


Also, notice that he defines the "playing field" as small as possible (in
his own thread, where he already knows nothing of the kind has happened -
crowing an easy victory), /already denying/ the validity of any proof that
might exist outside of it - A method often referred to as "stacking the
cards".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Arlen,

This isn't for you, since you're incapable of ever adding value.
o To any thread topic

So than why are you challenging me by name further down ?

[quote=you]
*How many screenshots did you post to add value to this thread, Rudy?*
[quote]

But pray tell, why should I have needed to do that ? I'm not the one who
is writing your tutorial. You are.

While it's clear the OP spent a lot of time annotating detailed screenshot

Hmmm. Talking about yourself in the third person. Not really a good sign
....

Putting energy in something does not equal creating something of worth.
Any parent of a kid digging holes in a sandbox can tell you that.

But yes, I acknowledge that you have put some effort into creating and
annotating those images. Alas, just as the "tutorials" you use them in,
they do not ammount to much (if anything).

Rudy Wieser _still_ can't, after more than a half dozen posts,
add a _single_ iota of added on-topic technical value to this
thread topic.

I did. You keep choosing to ignore it. Not my really problem.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:11:47 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Rudy Wieser _still_ can't, after more than a half dozen posts,
add a _single_ iota of added on-topic technical value to this
thread topic.

I did.
You keep choosing to ignore it.
Not my really problem.

Hi Rudy,

Again, this post is to prove, for the permanent record, what you are.
o You infest this thread _after_ all the work is done - and complain.

The evidence is rampant, Rudy Wieser, you're a worthless piece of ****.
o You can't add value to _any_ topic, least of all this topic.

All worthless pieces of **** like you are, Rudy, can do is complain that
a) You can't even click on links everyone else can, and,
b) You can't cut-&-paste the step-by-step instructions anyone else can.

You prove yourself that you're a worthless piece of **** by the answer to
this very simple question, since you "claim" to have added on-topic
technical value, Rudy:

Name the Message-ID of just one post where you added on-topic value.
o And describe, in a sentence, _what_ that technical value added was.

HINT: you can't
--
It's a fact of life there are only two types of people who post to Usenet:
o Those who add value; and those who can't. (Rudy Wieser is of the latter.)

Arlen,

Again, this post is to prove, for the permanent record, what you are.
o You infest this thread _after_ all the work is done - and complain.

As far as I'm concerned, and no doubt quite a number of other people here,
you have not finished that "tutorial" of yours. Not by a long shot.

You may stopped doing anything with it, but that doesn't automaticaly mean
its therefore also finished. There /is/ a difference.

And yes, I told you that /and/ pointed quite a few things out. You know,
doing a bit better than just yelling "Arlen, you're a worthless piece of
****. You can't add value to _any_ topic". But you call what I did a
complaint ? Well, if you say so.

The evidence is rampant, Rudy Wieser, you're a worthless piece of ****.
o You can't add value to _any_ topic, least of all this topic.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.

All worthless pieces of **** like you are, Rudy, can do is complain that
a) You can't even click on links everyone else can, and,
b) You can't cut-&-paste the step-by-step instructions anyone else can.

Yada, yada, yada. Already responded to.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.

Name the Message-ID of just one post where you added on-topic value.
o And describe, in a sentence, _what_ that technical value added was.

This thread. At Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:34:35 +0200. Multiple. I even marked
one with "Whooo! I just made /another/ tutorial !". Go fetch.

And no, I'm not going to put any effort into re-iterating stuff I've already
explained, only for you to /again/ ignore it. As they say, I may be a
nice guy, but my mama didn't raise no fools - or something like that.

But there you are, /again/ moving the goalposts, now make it sound that the
only thing that may be called helpfull is adding to /your/ tutorial.
Ofcourse, by that definition, rejecting/refusing to accept anything that
I've already offered you, or others elsewhere. Two flies in one stroke.

Kiddo, you are so very transparent in your antics, its almost as if you are
not quite there anymore. :-)

It's a fact of life there are only two types of people who post to Usenet:
o Those who add value; and those who can't. (Rudy Wieser is of the
latter.)

Originally Posted by me

Why don't you try to prove that ? Just find /all/ my messages and
describe, for each and every one of them how it was not helpful to the
intended recipient of that post. Good luck. :-)

Kiddo, don't you realise by now that "never", "always", "noone", "everyone"
and other indications like those are rather easy to break ? Just a
*single one* opposing it, and you fall flat on your face.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 6/21/2020 1:56 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
Arlen,

Again, this post is to prove, for the permanent record, what you are.
o You infest this thread _after_ all the work is done - and complain.

As far as I'm concerned, and no doubt quite a number of other people here,
you have not finished that "tutorial" of yours. Not by a long shot.

You may stopped doing anything with it, but that doesn't automaticaly mean
its therefore also finished. There /is/ a difference.

And yes, I told you that /and/ pointed quite a few things out. You know,
doing a bit better than just yelling "Arlen, you're a worthless piece of
****. You can't add value to _any_ topic". But you call what I did a
complaint ? Well, if you say so.

The evidence is rampant, Rudy Wieser, you're a worthless piece of ****.
o You can't add value to _any_ topic, least of all this topic.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.

All worthless pieces of **** like you are, Rudy, can do is complain that
a) You can't even click on links everyone else can, and,
b) You can't cut-&-paste the step-by-step instructions anyone else can.

Yada, yada, yada. Already responded to.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.

Name the Message-ID of just one post where you added on-topic value.
o And describe, in a sentence, _what_ that technical value added was.

This thread. At Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:34:35 +0200. Multiple. I even marked
one with "Whooo! I just made /another/ tutorial !". Go fetch.

And no, I'm not going to put any effort into re-iterating stuff I've already
explained, only for you to /again/ ignore it. As they say, I may be a
nice guy, but my mama didn't raise no fools - or something like that.

But there you are, /again/ moving the goalposts, now make it sound that the
only thing that may be called helpfull is adding to /your/ tutorial.
Ofcourse, by that definition, rejecting/refusing to accept anything that
I've already offered you, or others elsewhere. Two flies in one stroke.

Kiddo, you are so very transparent in your antics, its almost as if you are
not quite there anymore. :-)

It's a fact of life there are only two types of people who post to Usenet:
o Those who add value; and those who can't. (Rudy Wieser is of the
latter.)

Originally Posted by me

Why don't you try to prove that ? Just find /all/ my messages and
describe, for each and every one of them how it was not helpful to the
intended recipient of that post. Good luck. :-)

Kiddo, don't you realise by now that "never", "always", "noone", "everyone"
and other indications like those are rather easy to break ? Just a
*single one* opposing it, and you fall flat on your face.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



get a life

On 2020-06-21 12:00 p.m., TPayne wrote:
On 6/21/2020 1:56 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
Arlen,

Again, this post is to prove, for the permanent record, what you are.
o You infest this thread _after_ all the work is done - and complain.

As far as I'm concerned, and no doubt quite a number of other people
here,
you have not finished that "tutorial" of yours.Â* Not by a long shot.

You may stopped doing anything with it, but that doesn't automaticaly
mean
its therefore also finished.Â*Â* There /is/ a difference.

And yes, I told you that /and/ pointed quite a few things out.Â* You know,
doing a bit better than just yelling "Arlen, you're a worthless piece of
****. You can't add value to _any_ topic".Â*Â* But you call what I did a
complaint ?Â*Â* Well, if you say so.

The evidence is rampant, Rudy Wieser, you're a worthless piece of ****.
o You can't add value to _any_ topic, least of all this topic.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote,
/has/
happened.Â* Thats quite pathetic.

All worthless pieces of **** like you are, Rudy, can do is complain that
a) You can't even click on links everyone else can, and,
b) You can't cut-&-paste the step-by-step instructions anyone else can.

Yada, yada, yada.Â*Â* Already responded to.

Originally Posted by me

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote,
/has/
happened.Â* Thats quite pathetic.

Name the Message-ID of just one post where you added on-topic value.
o And describe, in a sentence, _what_ that technical value added was.

This thread.Â* At Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:34:35 +0200. Multiple.Â*Â* I even
marked
one with "Whooo! I just made /another/ tutorial !".Â* Go fetch.

And no, I'm not going to put any effort into re-iterating stuff I've
already
explained, only for you to /again/ ignore it.Â*Â*Â* As they say, I may be a
nice guy, but my mama didn't raise no fools - or something like that.

But there you are, /again/ moving the goalposts, now make it sound
that the
only thing that may be called helpfull is adding to /your/ tutorial.
Ofcourse, by that definition, rejecting/refusing to accept anything that
I've already offered you, or others elsewhere.Â*Â* Two flies in one stroke.

Kiddo, you are so very transparent in your antics, its almost as if
you are
not quite there anymore. :-)

It's a fact of life there are only two types of people who post to
Usenet:
o Those who add value; and those who can't. (Rudy Wieser is of the
latter.)

Originally Posted by me

Why don't you try to prove that ?Â*Â*Â* Just find /all/ my messages and
describe, for each and every one of them how it was not helpful to the
intended recipient of that post.Â*Â* Good luck. :-)

Kiddo, don't you realise by now that "never", "always", "noone",
"everyone"
and other indications like those are rather easy to break ?Â*Â*Â* Just a
*single one* opposing it, and you fall flat on your face.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



get a life

Does no one who posts that not see the irony?

Well Arlen,

What a surprise that you are not responding anymore. But, thats really you,
isn't it ?

Making accusations you have no way of proving them, getting told as much and
than simply re-posting them.

Demanding that I respond with proof to this-and-that, but you yourself not
responding anything I said or answered with. Regardless of if it was an
assessment - including reasoning - of the worth of your "tutorials"or to
the purposely helpfull suggestions I made otherwise (than again, you seem to
have a rather quaint, centered on you, notion of what "purposely helpfull
suggestions" is supposed to mean).

Whats the matter ? Afraid that we would trash you if you would acknowledge
that you actually know very little about writing tutorials ? We already
do - with me just being just a tad more persistent and direct about it.
So, what do you have to lose ? Besides, there is a plus side to where you
a Pretty-much the only way is up. :-)

And as a parting gift:
You've got well-ment advice from quite a number of people here. I suggest
you use it. With or without thanking the giver for it.

Goodbye - for now. We will no doubt meet again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:21:55 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

What a surprise that you are not responding anymore.

Hi Rudy Wieser,

You, yourself, are a perfect proof Rudy, of a worthless piece of ****!

For the permanent Usenet record to preserve... (as always)...
1. I researched the topic before I posted the detailed questions.
2. I wrote prior tutorials on an aspect of the topic needing improvement.
3. I asked a technical question about the topic spending energy on details.

*Since Usenet is a wonderful public helpful adult discussion medium*...
A. People read & understood my detailed questions
B. Adults spent time & energy to provide helpful suggestions
C. I tested all viable suggestions, & I spent energy detailing the solution

*Since Usenet is a playground for worthless pieces of **** like you*, Rudy
a. You complained that you don't like the tutorial
b. You even complained that you can't click on what is a simple link
c. Now you complain that it's clear you're a worthless piece of ****.

It's amazing how you _always_ prove to act, Rudy Wieser:
o You posted about a score of times - adding _negative_ value each time

And then, after posting _nothing_ of value, you complain that people don't
respond to you?

You've never even once in your life added technical value to any thread.
o And then, you complain, that people have stopped responding to you.
--
You, yourself, are a perfect proof Rudy, of a worthless piece of ****!