If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 2:17:12 AM, and on a whim,
Gerry pounded out on the keyboard: Terry At one time users of Outlook Express exceeded all the other newsreaders combined by a factor of 4 / 5 to 1. Now the market share of Outlook Express / Windows Mail may have declined but it still has the predominant share of the market. Arguably programme providers should have made efforts to resolve the type of problems you complain about. They have not. Quote Fix can resolve some of the problems but it was not provided by the provider of a newsreader. Why does the market leader have the responsibility to make changes? Don't the providers of newsreaders with small minority market shares have any responsibility in this matter? What? You mean "break" the proper design and function of their products, just because MS does? If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"? Your statement that it is a flaw in Microsoft products is not sustainable. The products were designed to work the way they do. It is just as logical to argue that it is the other products are flawed. Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was designed for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how broken is that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster is top posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting, it's fixing a stupid design. Proper newsreaders when top posting and using a sig, will NOT insert a delimiter, to preserve the writing below. A delimiter in ONLY to be used when bottom posting and the sig is under the reply. For years there has been an international body pontificating on standards. Whilst this is a logical way to resolve differences it's voice has never been strong enough to overcome the commercial arguments opposing change. No, MS could care. The ONLY around it is to use their client and then everything is fine. Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's the point of using it at all then? Until two weeks ago I was using Quote Fix but on a Windows XP reinstall I had more pressing and more important issues to resolve. It does not stop complaints from the Usenet fanatical fringe but they do diminish. I shall see if I can find time at the weekend to reinstall Quote Fix. Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post. The issue of delimiters causes problems for some, not all, non-Microsoft newsreaders. This problem with the subject field is seen in Outlook Express so it is a reverse situation. It is not really a problem as it is hardly noticeable. The subject in this thread was overlong and I have wondered whether it exceeds the normal number of allocated characters? Other than Bill stating a changed Subject causes OE/WM to break the thread, I don't see that changing it is any biggie. Ant was instructed on how to post and he probably won't modify the Subject again, unless the thread goes OT. Why do I need to learn the technical details of how newsreaders work in areas where Outlook Express works for me? If it did not work for me I would change to one that did. Millions feel like I do on this point. This is why Microsoft has never felt there is a commercial reason to make the changes you so desire. You have chosen a newsreader where you encounter these problems. That is your choice. Please do not complain to me about the consequences. The choice was yours. Your frustration is self created. That is the excuse of everyone using OE/WM. Unfortunately, MS wasn't the first news client for newsgroups. MS in it's normal fashion, designed a program, disregarded any standards, and basically tells everyone else, "We have the market share. We don't care what anyone else does." That's what market dominating companies do, not just MS. Can you can honestly tell me that having a program INSERT a delimiter and that same program IGNORES delimiters isn't broken? Not self created. I took the time to learn how to interact in newsgroups. And MS newsgroups are far from the only groups. If you only hang out in MS groups, you will never know how the rest of the users feel. You may continue to do nothing and use your broken client. I will continue to explain to those reading that I didn't wipe all the prior text out, that it was caused by a broken MS client. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
What's a Thread (was: What's the best freeware defragger)
"Terry R." wrote in message
... The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:06:47 PM, and on a whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard: "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Well, if one changes the subject line in any manner, then quite logically it becomes a new thread. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one can argue that a thread is a function of the newsreader being used to read it. In most news clients, a thread can contain changing subject lines. Messy, yes. And I don't normally advocate it. But there it is. :-) Another way to define a thread is by its posts' headers. There is certainly logic behind this definition. The proper way to change a Subject is: original topic original topic new topic (was: original topic) new topic Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly. Thanks, Terry. (I thought it didn't look quite right!) |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 12:21:40 AM, and on a whim,
Gordon pounded out on the keyboard: "Terry R." wrote in message ... Hi Bill, He didn't create "new posts". He just modified the Subject when he replied. Is it really that big of a deal? Yes, because in a high volume group most experienced users only display unread threads, and if there's a modification of the subject line, it can easily look like a new thread... Then train the unexperienced users WHEN and HOW to properly change a Subject. I explained it to Ant and now he understands. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 12:33:25 AM, and on a whim,
Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard: Gordon wrote: "Terry R." wrote in message ... Hi Bill, He didn't create "new posts". He just modified the Subject when he replied. Is it really that big of a deal? Yes, because in a high volume group most experienced users only display unread threads, and if there's a modification of the subject line, it can easily look like a new thread... -- Exactly. Because in actuality, it is. Not in actuality. Every change to the Subject in this thread is still under the original. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
What's a Thread
The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 9:28:41 AM, and on a whim,
Daave pounded out on the keyboard: "Terry R." wrote in message ... The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:06:47 PM, and on a whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard: "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Well, if one changes the subject line in any manner, then quite logically it becomes a new thread. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one can argue that a thread is a function of the newsreader being used to read it. In most news clients, a thread can contain changing subject lines. Messy, yes. And I don't normally advocate it. But there it is. :-) Another way to define a thread is by its posts' headers. There is certainly logic behind this definition. The proper way to change a Subject is: original topic original topic new topic (was: original topic) new topic Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly. Thanks, Terry. (I thought it didn't look quite right!) You're welcome Dave, Of course, as you can see, OE doesn't do that right either. sigh... Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free disk space?
Terry
Replies in line. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Terry R." wrote in message ... The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 2:17:12 AM, and on a whim, It was not on a whim! Gerry pounded out on the keyboard: I try not to pound the keyboard! Terry At one time users of Outlook Express exceeded all the other newsreaders combined by a factor of 4 / 5 to 1. Now the market share of Outlook Express / Windows Mail may have declined but it still has the predominant share of the market. Arguably programme providers should have made efforts to resolve the type of problems you complain about. They have not. Quote Fix can resolve some of the problems but it was not provided by the provider of a newsreader. Why does the market leader have the responsibility to make changes? Don't the providers of newsreaders with small minority market shares have any responsibility in this matter? What? You mean "break" the proper design and function of their products, just because MS does? Outlook Express is a functioning product. In what way does the design prevent it from functioning as Microsoft intended? I have not suggested that anyone should break the design of their product. All providers could have amended the design of their products if they felt it to be necessary. Remember most of the products we are discussing were designed over 10 years ago with few design changes in the last 5 years. Outlook Express is arguably provided for free so few users will pay much for a better service. There has been insufficient financial incentive to recruit a new design team to fix compatibility problem. If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"? Where did I say it is not a problem? Your statement that it is a flaw in Microsoft products is not sustainable. The products were designed to work the way they do. It is just as logical to argue that it is the other products are flawed. Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was designed for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how broken is that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster is top posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting, it's fixing a stupid design. An opinion many others may not share. Have you designed any highly successful computer software? Proper newsreaders when top posting and using a sig, will NOT insert a delimiter, to preserve the writing below. A delimiter in ONLY to be used when bottom posting and the sig is under the reply. For years there has been an international body pontificating on standards. Whilst this is a logical way to resolve differences it's voice has never been strong enough to overcome the commercial arguments opposing change. No, MS could care. Yes but they don't! The ONLY around it is to use their client and then everything is fine. Yes the solution is as simple as that Don Quixote G. Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's the point of using it at all then? No idea! Until two weeks ago I was using Quote Fix but on a Windows XP reinstall I had more pressing and more important issues to resolve. It does not stop complaints from the Usenet fanatical fringe but they do diminish. I shall see if I can find time at the weekend to reinstall Quote Fix. Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post. Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the latest message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason The issue of delimiters causes problems for some, not all, non-Microsoft newsreaders. This problem with the subject field is seen in Outlook Express so it is a reverse situation. It is not really a problem as it is hardly noticeable. The subject in this thread was overlong and I have wondered whether it exceeds the normal number of allocated characters? Other than Bill stating a changed Subject causes OE/WM to break the thread, I don't see that changing it is any biggie. I do not understand what Bill is saying as it doesn't break threads here. However he is reading Online ( I read Offline ) and is also I suspect using different View settings to me. If he replies to one of my posts I may be able to work out what he is saying. Ant was instructed on how to post and he probably won't modify the Subject again, unless the thread goes OT. Why do I need to learn the technical details of how newsreaders work in areas where Outlook Express works for me? If it did not work for me I would change to one that did. Millions feel like I do on this point. This is why Microsoft has never felt there is a commercial reason to make the changes you so desire. You have chosen a newsreader where you encounter these problems. That is your choice. Please do not complain to me about the consequences. The choice was yours. Your frustration is self created. That is the excuse of everyone using OE/WM. It's not an excuse! It's an explanation. Using Quote Fix and using Mime None rather Quoted Printable are compromises I make to reduce problems when communicating with less popular mail programmes. I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting! Unfortunately, MS wasn't the first news client for newsgroups. True but it opened up the opportunities of email to millions. MS in it's normal fashion, designed a program, disregarded any standards, and basically tells everyone else, "We have the market share. We don't care what anyone else does." That's what market dominating companies do, not just MS. That argument is putting the cart before the horse. They designed a product which everyone wanted. That gave them a dominant market share. It was then the power it gave them corrupted their philosopy. Now they think they can ignore users but this did not work out for them with Vista. We shall see how they respond with Windows 7. Can you can honestly tell me that having a program INSERT a delimiter and that same program IGNORES delimiters isn't broken? It is not broken if Outlook Express works as intended by the designers of the programme. Not self created. I took the time to learn how to interact in newsgroups. And MS newsgroups are far from the only groups. If you only hang out in MS groups, you will never know how the rest of the users feel. I have participated in Usenet groups. Like any responsible person I try to observe the rules of the group. However, many persons coming from Usenet try to promote / impose the rules from Usenet in the Microsoft newsgroups. Most users here are not interested. Some rules common to both, like flaming, are sadly not properly observed. You may continue to do nothing and use your broken client. It is not broken. I will continue to explain to those reading that I didn't wipe all the prior text out, that it was caused by a broken MS client. Do just that if it gives you satisfaction. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free disk space?
"Gerry" wrote in message
... Terry Replies in line. As are mine. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your sig should appear at the very end of your post. Placing it at the beginning is illogical. Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards. "Terry R." wrote in message ... Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post. Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the latest message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason How does placing your sig where it belongs make it difficult to read the post you are replying to? My sig is where it belongs, and I am having no difficulty whatsoever seeing what is being said in your message. I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting! No one is asking (or brow beating you) you to bottom post (Terry R was merely pointing out various problems he has encountered, including top-posting). In fact, what you are doing now -- inline posting -- is preferred for obvious reasons. Context is preserved and readability for *everyone* who is following the thread is maximized. Contextual inline posting with generous snipping away of impertinent info is by far superior to both bottom- and top-posting. -- Daave This is what a proper sig looks like. :-) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?
Gerry wrote:
Bill I use Outlook Express as well. This insertion of spaces is an odd one but it is not a problem. My experience with Outlook Express is that threading works well. Problems arise when the user fails to use a reply option when responding to an existing post. Well, that may be it - don't know. Problems also arise when some users fail to reply to the message they are replying to. Thus I reply to a post and someone intending to reply to the same person replies to me instead. This can be very annoying at times when the later post is saying things I totally disagree with. They should be communicating to the other person not me! I don't think that was the problem in this case, but then again, IF someone had not used the Reply To in the first place and thus started a new thread, and then someone replied to that one, and so on, then maybe that was it. I suspect that with many newsreaders the distinction does not make the consequences so obvious as in Outlook Express. You can see the problem if you compare threading in Outlook Express with that in a web based newsreader. Threading in the latter is not obvious.You cannot easily see sub-threads. Changes in the contents of the subject line have no affect on threading. You are reading Online whereas I read Offline so we may be employing different options. True - I'm reading Online. What View options have you selected? Hide read messages Group messages by conversation It's just interesting that this problem has only shown up quite recently, and on a few posts in in here - that's all. Most are threaded just fine. But a few new people have been posting recently, and I think it's probably tied into that. For the record mine are Show All Messages and I toggle between Show Replies to my Messages and Group Messages by Conversation. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Well, I'm using OE. I guess one could lump OE into "some newsreaders". :-) Gerry wrote: Bill From here what you say is not true. However, that is not to say that it may not be true with some newsreaders. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Terry R. wrote: The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:18:47 AM, and on a whim, Gordon pounded out on the keyboard: "Terry R." wrote in message ... The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:01:34 PM, and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard: Why are there multiple separate posts on this with just some slight variations in the subject line? One subject line for it is quite enough. There is only one thread I see, and the same subject for all. There's at least two - this one, with this subject line "What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?" and one with the subject line of "What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. S" Notice the difference? Bill stated, "separate posts". As I said, there is only one "thread" here. Anyone can change the subject line at any time. But you are correct that within this thread, some changed the Subject. But I don't have my headers set to show the full width, as usually a Subject line isn't so long, so I didn't notice the change at the end. If one changes the spacing in the subject line, as was done, it shows up as a new thread in OE. IOW, it's not tiered or grouped underneath the previous ones. Presumably the OP did this to create more responses. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free disk space?
Daave
Further replies in line. "Daave" wrote in message ... Your sig should appear at the very end of your post. It would be if I was top posting as I normally do. Placing it at the beginning is illogical. It is logical to place it after the narative of your message. The content of previous messages is not part of your reply. Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards. Usenet Standards are not part of the Rules for Microsoft newsgroups. If the Usenet fanatics had their way they would ban the use of Microsoft Outlook Express from the Microsoft mewsgroups. Is that logical? How does placing your sig where it belongs make it difficult to read the post you are replying to? My sig is where it belongs, and I am having no difficulty whatsoever seeing what is being said in your message. I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting! No one is asking (or brow beating you) you to bottom post (Terry R was merely pointing out various problems he has encountered, including top-posting). Yes but sometimes you need to exist in the real world and not the world you would like to live in. In fact, what you are doing now -- inline posting -- is preferred for obvious reasons. It is only helpful if you are having to respond to a number of points. It can be very confusing unless you snip redundant matter. Users often don't. Context is preserved and readability for *everyone* who is following the thread is maximized. Contextual inline posting with generous snipping away of impertinent info is by far superior to both bottom- and top-posting. Impertinent? In certain circumstances but not in others. -- Daave This is what a proper sig looks like. :-) No it's the way you like it. I prefer something more elaborate. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
Terry R. wrote:
Quotefix will place your sig at the bottom of the thread if you top post. Then the delimiter will not destroy the thread within the post. The following Registry fix will help for Outhouse users if they prefer to bottom post: To add your reply to the end of the newsgroup message. Locate the following registry key: [HKCU\Identities\{Identity-GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0] DWORD Reply At End Value 1 To add your signature to the end of the newsgroup message. Locate the following registry key: [HKCU\Identities\{Identity-GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0\signatures\00000000] DWORD end Value 1 -- William Crawford |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
On a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
Outlook Express is a functioning product. In what way does the design prevent it from functioning as Microsoft intended? I have not suggested that anyone should break the design of their product. All providers could have amended the design of their products if they felt it to be necessary. Remember most of the products we are discussing were designed over 10 years ago with few design changes in the last 5 years. Outlook Express is arguably provided for free so few users will pay much for a better service. There has been insufficient financial incentive to recruit a new design team to fix compatibility problem. It's about the delimiter and when it should be inserted and how a program deals with it when it is in a post. I'm not going to say it again. If it's NOT a "problem" as you state, WHY is their a "fix"? Where did I say it is not a problem? Like I said, read what the delimiter (dash dash space "-- ") was designed for. Then see how MS clients apply it and ignore it (BOTH- how broken is that)! The delimiter should NEVER be inserted when a poster is top posting and using a sig file. It's not an issue of top posting, it's fixing a stupid design. An opinion many others may not share. Have you designed any highly successful computer software? Opinion? Hardly. Judicious snipping is a general guideline when threads are long. Having a MS client insert a delimiter doesn't snip, it wipes everything out. All that is left is what the OE user wrote. Like the world revolves around only what they say. Insert a delimiter and ignore a delimiter. What's the point of using it at all then? No idea! We agree on that. Doing that makes it very difficult to see what is being said in the latest message. I don't like bottom posting for the same reason When you reply to an email or news message, the sender is shown in the attribution. Including the signature in the message text is unnecessary. A lot of groups request bottom posting and no snipping. This way a user can go to the last post in a thread and read everything, top to bottom. Novel idea isn't it? Reading top to bottom? Much better than having to go through each post in a thread starting at the beginning to figure out what was said, what the suggestions for resolution were, and whether it was resolved. It's not an excuse! It's an explanation. Using Quote Fix and using Mime None rather Quoted Printable are compromises I make to reduce problems when communicating with less popular mail programmes. I refuse, however, to be brow beaten into bottom posting! I never brought up top or bottom posting. That's not the issue. That argument is putting the cart before the horse. They designed a product which everyone wanted. That gave them a dominant market share. It was then the power it gave them corrupted their philosopy. Now they think they can ignore users but this did not work out for them with Vista. We shall see how they respond with Windows 7. It's a start by not including any mail client. But I'm sure there will be lots of opportunities for them to point users at Windows Live Services. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
How do I resolve defragmentation problem with limited free diskspace?
The date and time was Fri Mar 13 2009 13:15:05 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard: Your sig should appear at the very end of your post. It would be if I was top posting as I normally do. Again, to me it's really not an issue where you put your sig. But since you are using a sig, the delimiter is placed where it shouldn't If you look at the top line (attrition line), you see your name there, so putting your sig in a top posted reply is redundant. That's why sig delimiters are used. Furthermore, it contradicts Usenet standards. Usenet Standards are not part of the Rules for Microsoft newsgroups. If the Usenet fanatics had their way they would ban the use of Microsoft Outlook Express from the Microsoft mewsgroups. Is that logical? After all these years, MS is finally coming out with a browser that will be W3C "compliant". There approach to browsing caused most of the issues we deal with today. But all the MS fanatics kept saying, "IE is the best!" And with Windows 7, OE/WM gets tossed. No it's the way you like it. I prefer something more elaborate. Gerry, Thank you for putting your sig at the end, if only for this discussion. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
What's a Thread (was: What's the best freeware defragger)
Terry R. wrote:
The proper way to change a Subject is: original topic original topic new topic (was: original topic) new topic Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly. Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what happens. Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
What's a Thread
The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:11:57 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard: Terry R. wrote: The proper way to change a Subject is: original topic original topic new topic (was: original topic) new topic Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly. Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what happens. Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed? Yep. Look at it now. This is what a "proper newsreader" is supposed to do with the Subject change. I don't know why it removed OT either. That isn't supposed to happen. It's a buggy client, no doubt. I know they all have bugs, but these discussed here are particularly annoying, especially for newsgroups. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
What's a Thread
The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:11:57 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard: Terry R. wrote: The proper way to change a Subject is: original topic original topic new topic (was: original topic) new topic Now when you reply, the "was:" section is removed by a "proper newsreader", and the changed Subject thread is started. Usually used for OT discussion, and is prefaced accordingly. Now I will reply from my other PC that has OE w/ QuoteFix to see what happens. Hmmm... The OT designation is no longer in the subject! Also, if I use a different reader altogether, the "was" section will be removed? Dave, See my reply to my above post when I changed the Subject. You can see how it should have changed, as opposed to how OE didn't change it (but removed the OT). Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|