You know somethin' folx, some things get tiresome at times. Like
"experts" who post their own "bug reports" because they don't get a
personal response for a personal system problem ... or people who can't
seem to grasp the concept that what you see on the screen is video card
dependent, so a screen print will *OF* *COURSE* also be video card
dependent.
Now I've often been round the horn with saying "I am having problems
with ..." and no one else was able to duplicate it. But I didn't decide
that I knew so much about the software that *I* *KNEW* the problems were
in the software and not anything to do with the system I was running or
the installation I'd done.
And the concept that a picture must be imbedded in a page in order to
"prove" a point is just about the most ridiculous .... well ... I truly
don't believe that all pictures are worth 10,000 words. That's like
putting a fancy background behind a page and expecting it to make the
trash of the text somehow more worthwhile.
This ain't a game of D'n'D ... or that game I used to play on-line with
all my scripts running it automatically while I was shopping or going to
work or cleaning house. But some people apparently feel the need to
approach it that way.
Suggestion: If you are not a member of the development team, any public
"bug list" should clearly indicate that the bugs are specific to your
system, your installation ... and you should provide full information on
that system and components so that people who *DO* know how things work
could have a chance of identifying the true source of the reported
"bugs."
I'll shut up now ... This doesn't need to run 4 or 7 or 10 screens.
l.d.
P.S. I seem to remember getting yelled at for having a 5 or 6 line
sig file on my messages; isn't 9 lines or so more than excessive?
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
