I know I am biased towards certain things. I have Ford blue in my veins. But I also know, from time to time, Ford for the sake of Ford wasn't always the best answer, evidenced by an excellent 78 Chev Caprice I had, and an Awesome 69 Dodge Hemi Charger (I had the hot fords, 2 X '62 406s and a 63 427 Fastback, and a monster '88 514cu in Shelby Cobra Replica), and one of my boats has an excellent pair of 383cu in Chevy Smallblocks.
So even though I have very strong feelings one way, I also know there are other ways to accomplish a task that are not necessarily in agreement with the way someone else might do it or have an opinion on how best to do it. Very few of my friends from circa '62 were of the Ford bent and we have argued the Ford/Chevy subject exhaustively from Then to present day and I can't think of any time that anyone would degrade the argument by questioning a persons intellectual capacity [except for the few that liked Studebakers ;-) ]. Probably a good time to wave a white flag on this OT thread. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernie Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Off topic > Eric - > > You really don't seem to understand that there are wonderful > features in some of the earlier word processors that Word simply doesn't > have. Things that can be done very easily with those older programs > take far longer and require much more effort if one is using Word. In > addition you can see exactly what you are doing with the document > infrastructure while using the older programs. With Word it's all > smoke and mirrors and nothing stays on the screen such that it is > usable in creating the document. In addition, the heavy reliance of > Word on mouse use means that it takes somewhat longer to produce the > same amount of complex document than in the older programs. This is > because the user has to constantly take a hand off the keyboard and > reach for a mouse to do things which were formerly handled with > keypresses. > > Newer doesn't necessarily mean better or "more advanced". In the > case of Word XP it means some aspects of the program are less advanced > than programs which were available in 1990. Word XP can of course do > a lot of new things which hadn't even been thought of then, like convert a > document into HTML. When examined from a human performance perspective, > Word is a disaster. The help isn't. Topics as simple as how to set the > various margins are either non-existant or non-findable. Simple aids to > document structure aren't there. If my software were that bad, I couldn't > sell it to my clients. > > BTW I'm beginning to think you don't have the intellectual horsepower > necessary to understand the prior paragraphs so this will be my last shot in > this discussion. (Nothing personal intended - just an objective appraisal.) > > Bernie > > > At 02:05 PM 7/24/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >So, because you are a simpleton and unable to use advanced software; > >Microsoft software sucks? Isn't it you who sucks? (nothing personal by > >that statement) > > > > > >Eric Peterson > >IT Manager > >QMI Security Solutions > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bob Castanaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:56 PM > >To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Off topic > > > >C'mon, Mike - you've got to remember that you are a VB guru, miles ahead > >of > >many of us, and continents ahead of an average user. Some of us are > >just > >simpletons wanting to put out a decent document as easy as possible > >without > >a six month learning curve..... > > > >BC > > > > > >
