Scott
Fri Apr 22 16:00:17 CDT 2005
In article <1gveuaz.drz4hct4v4h1N%matt@tidbits.com>,
matt@tidbits.com (matt neuburg) wrote:
> Scott <heimdall@spamless.invalid> wrote:
>
> > have said so. Paul Berkowitz said that "It does seem to be broken in
> > 2004. I suspect it's a consequence of some of changes to Unicode in
> > either Panther or Entourage 2004. I'll report the bug." He was helpful
> > and clearly answered the question.
> >
> > You, on the other hand, flippantly said "Uh, because this is a computer
> > program? Duh...." This doesn't answer anything. Your first response had
> > been "Could it be that it's just plain busted?", which sounds like you
> > were just making a wild guess and had no experience with why it wasn't
> > functioning.
>
> Okay, I'll do one more iteration before plonking, since this has
> suddenly devolved into the gratuitous ad hominem. I don't usually do any
> iterations in that realm, but I'll take the bait just this once.
I find it ironic that you have made repeated ad hominems against me, but
then note that "this has suddenly devolved into the gratuitous ad
hominem." If you interpreted anything I said to be an ad hominem, I
apologize for it coming across that way; I was reacting defensively to
what I perceived as being such from you.
> Paul's response and mine are identical as regards content. We're both
> saying it doesn't work and that that would seem to be a bug. That's all,
> as far as it goes. He did not provide, nor does he have, any further
> knowledge of the matter. We both did exactly the same thing: we tried
> the menu item, it didn't work, we assumed it's a bug and that something
> got broken along the way. Indeed, in that respect neither of us provided
> any information that *you* didn't already have.
Actually, Paul provided me information I did not have. For all I knew
when posting, the feature worked for every other Entourage 04 user.
Saying "could it be that it's just plain busted?" is not the same as
saying "it doesn't work for me either." I did not get the impression
that you had tried the menu item yourself.
> If anything, my response was *more* directly helpful than Paul's because
> I then suggested a workaround (and in a later message I also commended
> you for finding what might be an even better workaround).
Indeed, and thank you. I do prefer to do things with as few steps as
possible.
> Therefore there seems no rational reason for complaining that my
> responses were flip. I think my responses were exactly on point. What
> you didn't like about them was apparently that my responses were
> realistic - I didn't pat your hand and go "Awwww, did wittle user find
> wittle bug? Let Mommy kiss it and make it better." Mommy *isn't* going
> to kiss it and make it better. It's a bug, ths program like all programs
> is full of them, and it will get fixed if and when Microsoft fixes it
> and no sooner. And no one here has the slightest idea when, if ever,
> that will be. m.
"Uh, because this is a computer program? Duh.... " is a flippant answer,
and your incorrect supposition that I want "Mommy ... to kiss it and
make it better" went from flippant to plain insulting. It was also
undeserved since at no point did I ask for anything but thoughts about
why it was not working. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my
reply to your first response, but when I asked "but does that indicate
some other underlying problem, one that should be taken care of," I was
asking whether it was a simple Entourage bug (something I couldn't do
anything about) or, as I've said repeatedly, whether this was due to a
damaged file *on my system* that could be fixed (e.g., tossing a
preference file and letting Entourage or another part of Office rebuild
it). It wasn't until Paul said that he had replicated the bug that I had
my answer.
--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
<
http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>