top post

Whatever... sigh
Brian, almost the entirety of this thread has been totally inane. One thing
for certain, and I knew this would happen. Post a message of this sort and
all sorts of people come to "the rescue" ... of whatever.... Their
"dignified selves" / "Their hobby" ? "Their beloved blue-ribbon")

The fact remains that my initial post clearly stated What was wrong and what
version of Outlook in the subject line. I opened my post with a reiteration
of the problem / Outlook version / and operating system.Even so, there seem
to be some who were in such a hurry (but minutes had elapsed) to unload
their own *rant* that they either didn't read, or let their fingers on
keyboard jump ahead of their brain.

Thus far, I've had a few MVP's (and others) making all sorts of excuses and
their own rants and other nonsense stating the obvious, but inaccurate, as
far as my instance was concerned. For instance:
paste
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] wrote:

Common reasons why posts are not answered:

1. Posters omit Outlook version.
--I clearly stated Outlook 2002 in my very first post, in the subject line.
2. Posters omit clear description of problem, e.g., "Help, my Outlook will
not send!"
--I stated most succinctly, "customize freezes", both in subject line and
in text body.
3. Posters use the subject line as the complete description.
--I wrote an exact summary of the problem in the text body.
4. Posters do not respond with requested information when asked by the
volunteers.
-- I not only returned in a timely manner, but I responded with whatever
was asked. Unfortunately, when I asked for any clarification or
supplementary information, I had to wait *two days* for each return
reply.... and that *only* after I waited two days with no reply whatsoever
and the made a *re-post* - and I said it was a re-post.
5. Posters p*ss off the volunteers by unnecessary usage of M$, Microsloth,
Microshills, Microsh*t, etc.
-- I used nothing of a sort.
6. Posters begin by bashing the group/helpers/answers.
-- I did not *begin by bashing*. I clearly asked a question and it was
ignored. It took a second re-post to get any answer at all, and then the
person disapperas for two days. It then took days on end to get any back and
forth on it. But, I knew that if I wrote this (because I grew fed-up the
boilerplate, etc.) that it would elicit exactly what it did.
7. We all have personal lives that precludes hovering in these news groups
24/7.
-- How unique....totally 'singular'.

Take your pick. Pay especial attention to number 6.
-- I submit, that those who have made such remarks, should pay especial
(sic) attention to the initial post which was written before jumping the
gun.
/paste

Where was Milly when the actual post and re-post was hanging in limbo ?
Nowhere...Probably hasn't even seen it. So, this smug post from her is
inaccurate and based solely upon some "boilerplate" excuse.
Just the same as someone who asks "Windows 98 ?" What the heck does that
have to do with anything ? (and for the last time, it's W98SE, not W98).

-------EOP-------------------------


"Brian Tillman" wrote in message
...
Roxana wrote:

Firstly, I clearly wrote W98se, and not W98. Try reading a bit more
carefully mate.

Secondly, I have had Office XP/Outlook 2002/Word 2002/ Excel and
Publlisher and W98se installed on what was a then brand new computer
and had no problems with software/OS from the jump-start.......

So, if you're trying to make some snide remark about some alleged
incompatibility between W98SE and Office XP / Outlook 2002, you'd
better run rabbits, eat dirt and bark at the moon, OK ?

The problem is not that anyone's disparaging your use of WIndows 98, it's
just that few of the people here USE that version at this point, so can't
investigate the problem. I did use Windows 98 for a long time, even after
most people I know had transitioned to Windows XP because I couldn't
afford
a new PC at the time. The household budget just didn't allow it. Even
then, though, I was using a second-hand Office 97 that an acquaintance had
been going to throwing away, so I, for one, never had a configuration to
match yours and couldn't have answered if I had wanted. In those cases,
when someone doesn't know the answer, s/he doesn't post. Apparently, your
original question was one of theose imponderables the depths of which no
one
could plumb. If you are, as you say, familiar with peer-to-peer
newsgroups,
you'd know this and wouldn't have posted the rant.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]