A statement such as "If you are not bothered by the spacing problems, then that's fine for you. I am." is uncalled for. What kind of engraver would not be bothered by spacing problems? But who says that the remedy to spacing problems is your solution only? It stands without question that if a spacing problem were encountered it would indeed be remedied, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. If I choose "another" and it works by all relevant criteria, what is the problem?
Richard --- Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21.01.2004 1:37 Uhr, Richard Huggins wrote > > > Below would be my choice as well. As for the objection that it > can't be used > > if correct spacing were an issue, I ask why. Spacing is adjustable > to make > > room for this, using the beat chart for one thing. > > Well, adjusting the beat chart is more work than it is worth, imo. If > you > are not bothered by the spacing problems, then that's fine for you. I > am. > Creating two measures on entry is less complicated than changing the > beat > chart, I find. Besides, once you have created the two measures and > adjusted > the measure nos this will not be messed up by respacing, ie on part > extraction (another reason not to use shapes or lines). > > Johannes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
