Am 2008-05-21 18:59:00, schrieb Brad Rogers:
Customer Support team. Especially as some unscrupulous vendors of OOo
sell this list as their paid support.
In the last 3 weeks I have found over 230 Websites, Online-Shops and
eBay-Sales of them and have send out over 50 Messages to them...
...but
Am 2008-05-19 18:38:26, schrieb Barbara Duprey:
Michelle, I realize that this is not a complete or ideal solution, but
I'm sure you realize that by far the majority of users who show up as
unsubscribed do not use any other mechanism to receive replies, and must
currently be explicitly
On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:06:49 +0200
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Michelle,
BUT (!!!) if they write here, HOW do they know this list?
There's a mailto: link on the OOo web site, which allows unsubbed users
to post to the list, via the moderation route.
It seems they are
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-05-19 18:38:26, schrieb Barbara Duprey:
Michelle, I realize that this is not a complete or ideal solution, but
I'm sure you realize that by far the majority of users who show up as
unsubscribed do not use any other mechanism to receive replies, and must
* Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here *
*Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe*
Am
Am 2008-05-15 17:35:06, schrieb James Knott:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is delivered to
the moderator
Am 2008-05-15 17:33:02, schrieb Richard Detwiler:
No, if I do a reply, it should go to the reply-to field.
This is WRONG! reply should ALWAYS go to the From: except if the
header Reply-To:, Return-Path: or Mail-Followup-To: is set.
If I do a reply all, it should go to the reply-to field plus
On 16 May 2008 at 22:05, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-05-15 17:35:06, schrieb James Knott:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the 'Reply-To' header. Having
Hi HF!
Am 2008-05-18 01:21:46, schrieb Harold Fuchs:
This gives the impression that you, Michelle think I'm a moderator or even
*the* moderator. Neither is correct; I have no connection at all with the
Yes I was realy thinking YOU are the guy doing all the stuff here... :-)
administration of
Michelle Konzack wrote:
* Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here *
*Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe*
Am 2008-05-15 08:48:33, schrieb Richard Detwiler:
Like Harold, I use Thunderbird, and I find it aggravating that doing a
Reply all does not work in terms of sending a copy to the original
poster (for cases where they are unsubscribed). (Why doesn't reply all
really reply to all? Isn't that
Am 2008-05-15 16:41:37, schrieb mike scott:
Because a reply-to header supercedes the 'from' header when making
the reply - it's the way for the originator to redirect replies to an
address of his choosing.
The OOo list software uses reply-to to make sure replies go to the
list - so a
2008/5/16 Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am 2008-05-15 16:41:37, schrieb mike scott:
Because a reply-to header supercedes the 'from' header when making
the reply - it's the way for the originator to redirect replies to an
address of his choosing.
The OOo list software uses
On 15 May 2008 at 17:33, Richard Detwiler wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and
also send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button.
Those who use these non-compliant
On 15 May 2008 at 16:39, Larry Gusaas wrote:
-Original Message-
From: James Knott
Sent: 2008/05/15 3:35 PM
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the
first place. If they are allowed, at least their address should
be added to the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see
Harold Fuchs wrote:
2008/5/15 Bob Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
snip
Thanks for the info. I will try to remember to not use the Reply All
button in the future. By the way, could you explain the difference between
the Reply and Reply All functions? I'm sure that
Larry Gusaas wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michelle Konzack
Sent: 2008/05/14 7:13 AM
Am 2008-05-11 17:14:39, schrieb Harold Fuchs:
James, are you talking about messages from Bob Estes
([EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Yes, and mee too, I get always to messages from Bob, one which come
On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:46:53 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
In ageneralised *e-mail* discussion an email is sent To one person
(or more) and cc several others. Reply sends the reply *only* to the
sender of the message being replied to; Reply All sends the message
to that person plus all those
2008/5/15 Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:46:53 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
In ageneralised *e-mail* discussion an email is sent To one person
(or more) and cc several others. Reply sends the reply *only* to the
sender of the message being replied to; Reply All
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Yep, thats how i CC the OP when they are non list members (moderated
posters).
Hmmm. What *exact* method (OP Sys, mail/news program, mail or news) do you
use to read/write the list? I currently use Thunderbird on one computer and
Google's web interface via Firefox on
Bob Estes wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michelle Konzack
Sent: 2008/05/14 7:13 AM
Am 2008-05-11 17:14:39, schrieb Harold Fuchs:
James, are you talking about messages from Bob Estes
([EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Yes, and mee too, I get always to messages from
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Yep, thats how i CC the OP when they are non list members (moderated
posters).
Hmmm. What *exact* method (OP Sys, mail/news program, mail or news)
do you
use to read/write the list? I currently use Thunderbird on one
computer and
Google's web
James Knott wrote:
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Yep, thats how i CC the OP when they are non list members (moderated
posters).
Hmmm. What *exact* method (OP Sys, mail/news program, mail or news)
do you
use to read/write the list? I currently use Thunderbird on one
computer
On 15 May 2008 at 11:30, Richard Detwiler wrote:
...
I think you'll find the list sets the reply to to the list and reply
to overrides the originating address. So, when you hit reply all,
Thunderbird only sees the list address and not the originator.
I realize that is what happening.
Richard Detwiler wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
at always puzzled me.)
I think you'll find the list sets the reply to to the list and reply
to overrides the originating address. So, when you hit reply all,
Thunderbird only sees the list address and
-Original Message-
From: Harold Fuchs
Sent: 2008/05/15 5:58 AM
2008/5/15 Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:46:53 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
In ageneralised *e-mail* discussion an email is sent To one person
(or more) and cc several others. Reply sends the
Larry Gusaas wrote:
Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and also
send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button. Those
who use these non-compliant programs can use 'Reply-All' button when
responding to unsubscribed OPs.
I'm not sure I'd call those
-Original Message-
From: Richard Detwiler
Sent: 2008/05/15 2:43 PM
Larry Gusaas wrote:
Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and also
send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button. Those
who use these non-compliant programs can use 'Reply-All'
On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:58:39 +0100
Harold Fuchs wrote:
2008/5/15 Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:46:53 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
In ageneralised *e-mail* discussion an email is sent To one
person(or more) and cc several others. Reply sends the reply
James Knott wrote:
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and
also send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button.
Those who use these non-compliant programs can use 'Reply-All'
button when responding to
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is delivered to
the moderator before replying is idiotic.
Does reply to
Richard Detwiler wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Richard Detwiler wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and
also send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button.
Those who use these non-compliant programs can use 'Reply-All'
button
-Original Message-
From: James Knott
Sent: 2008/05/15 3:35 PM
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the first
place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be added to
the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is delivered
to the moderator before replying is idiotic.
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the
first place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be
added to the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is
delivered to the moderator before replying is idiotic.
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the
first place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be
added to the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is
delivered to the moderator before
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the
first place. If they are allowed, at least their address should be
added to the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a post is
delivered to the moderator before
I'll respond to two of your messages in one post. See below
-Original Message-
From: James Knott
Sent: 2008/05/15 7:28 PM
How did you set two reply-to addresses? What does the header look like?
Add a new address to be sent to. Click 'To' and select 'Reply-to'. This
should work the
James Knott wrote:
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
The problem is allowing unsubscribed postes to the list in the
first place. If they are allowed, at least their address should
be added to the 'Reply-To' header. Having to look to see if a
post is delivered
Am 2008-05-05 21:33:35, schrieb web at work:
The total for the file is about 130 meg.
If your speed is 56K then lets do the math.
56k = 0.056 m/sec though it could be faster line 128k = 0.128 m/sec
56k = 57344 kBit or 5734 Baud = 0.0054 MByte/sec
130 meg / 0.056 = 2322 seconds
I for one only get a single instance of your message.
As did I. However, IIRC, Bob's dupes appeared 24 hrs later than the
first. Possibly being held up in a queue, awaiting moderation.
FWIW messages for this thread are going through moderation. The 24 hour
delay is quite possible.
I
Am 2008-05-06 08:51:59, schrieb Bob Estes:
Bit? Bytes?
Is a bit a small bit of a byte or is a byte just a small bite from a
bit??? Or maybe a bit is past tense of a byte??? Technology! Gr
grimace
Basicly, a Byte is eight Bits.
END OF REPLIED
* Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here *
*Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe*
Am
Michelle Konzack wrote:
This real data traffic is called BAUD.
Note: Additional to the STOP and the START Bit you can have
additional bits and a STOP bit can have 1 1/2 time of
the normal lenght...
You'd normally only see 1.5 stop bits with 5 level codes. Eight bit
codes
(was Re: [users] Re: Download
time for open office)
James Knott wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
On 11/05/2008 14:32, James Knott wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James
PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [users] Re: Duplicated Messages (was Re: [users] Re: Download
time for open office)
James Knott wrote
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject:[users] Re: Download time for open office
On 2008/05/12 3:43 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:16:59 +0100
mike scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello mike,
To muddy the waters further, I see some of Bob Estes' mail
duplicated
Michelle Konzack wrote:
This real data traffic is called BAUD.
Note: Additional to the STOP and the START Bit you can have
additional bits and a STOP bit can have 1 1/2 time of
the normal lenght...
You'd normally only see 1.5 stop bits with 5 level codes. Eight bit
codes
On Sun, 11 May 2008 22:05:06 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-05-05 21:33:35, schrieb web at work:
The total for the file is about 130 meg.
If your speed is 56K then lets do the math.
56k = 0.056 m/sec though it could be faster line 128k =
0.128 m/sec
56k = 57344 kBit
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-05-06 08:51:59, schrieb Bob Estes:
Bit? Bytes?
Is a bit a small bit of a byte or is a byte just a small bite from a
bit??? Or maybe a bit is past tense of a byte??? Technology! Gr
grimace
Basicly, a Byte is eight Bits.
END
Hello Brad,
Am 2008-05-11 17:21:10, schrieb Brad Rogers:
Like James, I've received two copies of messages from Bob. One set is
via the moderation route, the other direct to the list.
Currently, there's weirdness going on at the openoffice.org domain
(again) as I can't post from one address
And here is an example where I received it via the moderator. Both this
message and the original were sent at the same time, so it appears the mail
list is messing up.
I think the answer may be that the 'return-path:' for the moderated and
non-moderated messages are different.
-Original Message-
From: Michelle Konzack
Sent: 2008/05/14 7:13 AM
Am 2008-05-11 17:14:39, schrieb Harold Fuchs:
James, are you talking about messages from Bob Estes
([EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Yes, and mee too, I get always to messages from Bob, one which come
directly into the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag
/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [users] Re: Download time for open office
X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-
greylist-3.0 (scottsonline.org.uk [86.22.68.66]); Sun, 11 May 2008
11:35:16 +0100 (BST)
X-Scanned
On 12 May 2008 at 10:16, mike scott wrote:
...
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag the moderated messages
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:16:59 +0100
mike scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello mike,
To muddy the waters further, I see some of Bob Estes' mail
duplicated, some not. For example, the headers from a duplicated pair
are appended. Same message-id and origination times. Hard to tell
when they
Bob Estes wrote:
John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400 John W Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in
1/8ths of a dollar until just a few years ago.
James Knott wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
On 11/05/2008 14:32, James Knott wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the
list.
I flag
Richard Travers wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is
mike scott wrote:
On 12 May 2008 at 10:16, mike scott wrote:
...
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag
On 12 May 2008 at 3:54, Bob Estes wrote:
...
If you find out what is going on, and if it is my fault, let me know so
that I can correct it.
I don't think you in particular are causing any problem, Bob.
This issue goes back a while. I've been keeping copies of most
questions to the OOo list
On 12 May 2008 at 7:24, James Knott wrote:
Richard Travers wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
...
On 2008/05/12 3:43 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:16:59 +0100
mike scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello mike,
To muddy the waters further, I see some of Bob Estes' mail
duplicated, some not. For example, the headers from a duplicated pair
are appended. Same message-id and
2008/5/12 Larry Gusaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I access this group through gmane. As a test I used 'Reply to All' to
reply to this, sending the reply through gmane and to [EMAIL PROTECTED] see
if both show up and if everyone gets both copies.
I for one only get a single instance of your
On Monday 12 May 2008 18:30:22 Harold Fuchs wrote:
2008/5/12 Larry Gusaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I access this group through gmane. As a test I used 'Reply to All' to
reply to this, sending the reply through gmane and to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] see if both show up and if everyone gets both
copies.
On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:30:22 +0100
Harold Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Harold,
I for one only get a single instance of your message.
As did I. However, IIRC, Bob's dupes appeared 24 hrs later than the
first. Possibly being held up in a queue, awaiting moderation.
--
Regards _
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
Bob Estes wrote:
John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400 John W Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in 1/8ths
of a dollar
John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in 1/8ths
of a dollar until just a few years ago.
Let's bring back
James Knott wrote:
Bob Estes wrote:
The U.S. Navy was still using Model 28 teletypes in the mid to late
1960's, and if I recall correctly, they had an extra long stop bit.
(Either 1.5 or 2 bits.)
Depending on the service, they'd likely be either 1.42 or 1.5 stop bits.
The 1.5 seems to
Let's bring back pieces of 8 :-)
Let's bring back real currency. (i.e. gold silver coin as
specified in the U.S. Constitution.)
And what's wrong with gold-pressed latinum? ;-)
Can you immagine the size of one dollar gold coins nowadays, You'd have
to have holes in them so you could
Bob Estes wrote:
There is no reason that Congress would have to use the value of the
Federal Reserve Notes when defining the weight of gold and silver coins.
Is there any reason why your messages are appearing both directly on the
list as well as via the moderator? We don't need two copies
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
Lisi
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On Sun, 11 May 2008 02:47:52 -0700
Bob Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag the moderated messages in red. When he sends to the list, I get
two copies, one
On Sunday 11 May 2008 14:32:17 James Knott wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag the moderated messages in red. When he
On 11/05/2008 14:32, James Knott wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the list.
I flag the moderated messages in red. When he sends
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:14:39 +0100
Harold Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Harold,
I also flag moderated messages in red and his (a) are *not* flagged
(never have been in my lifetime) and (b) do not have the moderator
for users@openoffice.org Delivered-To header. I'm baffled (nothing
Harold Fuchs wrote:
On 11/05/2008 14:32, James Knott wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 13:06:39 James Knott wrote:
We don't need two copies of all your
messages.
I'm only getting one, James. The one that is coming direct to the
list.
I flag the moderated messages
On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:32:24 -0400
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Perhaps the list is moderating some members, while allowing their
messages to go straight through as well.
Possibly, but why should you and I see this behaviour, but not Harold
and Lisi? All very odd..
Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:32:24 -0400
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Perhaps the list is moderating some members, while allowing their
messages to go straight through as well.
Possibly, but why should you and I see this behaviour, but not Harold
On 11/05/2008 17:46, James Knott wrote:
Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:32:24 -0400
James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Perhaps the list is moderating some members, while allowing their
messages to go straight through as well.
Possibly, but why should you and
On May 11, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in
1/8ths of a dollar
Bob Estes wrote:
Joseph wrote:
JOE Conner wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
SNIP
For the benefit of those of us who did not understand it...
My guess would be that there is an American/Australian coin worth
12.5 cents, since that would make sense of this comment. Is that
correct??
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:31 PM
To: users@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [users] Re: Download time for open office
Bob Estes wrote:
Joseph wrote:
JOE Conner wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
SNIP
For the benefit of those of us who did not understand it...
My guess would
Twayne wrote:
Bob Estes wrote:
Bit? Bytes?
Is a bit a small bit of a byte or is a byte just a small bite from a
bit??? Or maybe a bit is past tense of a byte??? Technology!
Gr grimace
Basicly, a Byte is eight Bits.
Perhaps he bit off more than he can chew. ;-)
He shoulda
Bob McConnell wrote:
James Knott wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 05/07/2008 11:59 AM, James Knott wrote:
mike scott wrote:
On 6 May 2008 at 17:15, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
...
It was 1.5 stop bits back in 1976 when we were integrating a 1200bps
modem into our
Michael Adams wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 08:51:59 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
Bit? Bytes?
Is a bit a small bit of a byte or is a byte just a small bite from a
bit??? Or maybe a bit is past tense of a byte??? Technology!
Gr grimace
Basicly, a Byte is eight Bits.
But a Nibble is four
Joseph wrote:
JOE Conner wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
SNIP
For the benefit of those of us who did not understand it...
My guess would be that there is an American/Australian coin worth
12.5 cents, since that would make sense of this comment. Is that
correct??
Lisi
It was a Mexican
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in 1/8ths of
a dollar until just a few years ago.
Let's bring back pieces of 8 :-)
Let's bring back real currency. (i.e. gold silver
: [users] Re: Download time for open office
Twayne wrote:
Bob Estes wrote:
Bit? Bytes?
Is a bit a small bit of a byte or is a byte just a small bite from a
bit??? Or maybe a bit is past tense of a byte??? Technology!
Gr grimace
Basicly, a Byte is eight Bits.
Perhaps he bit off
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Estes
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:36 AM
To: users@openoffice.org
Subject: [users] Re: Download time for open office
Michael Adams wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 08:51:59 -0700
Bob Estes wrote:
Bit? Bytes
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Estes
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:44 AM
To: users@openoffice.org
Subject: [users] Re: Download time for open office
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED
I am having a problem using open office calc linking with a website to update
the dde on the spreadsheet. Can you help me?
Bob Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued
On May 10, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bob Estes wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:47:48 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the New York Stock Exchange continued to trade in 1/8ths
of a dollar until just a few years ago.
Let's bring back pieces of 8 :-)
Let's
I don't know how to get information support. I sent a question and I am getting
a lot of responses that have nothing to do with my question.
Here is my problem:
I have a spreadsheet written on Open Office that I
want to use. It contains data that is linked to a
website and it's data is
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:29:22 -0400
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's not use this mailing list as a forum for political lies. The US
Constitution does not and never did make any such specification, as
can be readily ascertained merely by taking the time to read it.
This is
No speek english me !
2008/5/10 Bob Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bob McConnell wrote:
James Knott wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 05/07/2008 11:59 AM, James Knott wrote:
mike scott wrote:
On 6 May 2008 at 17:15, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
...
It was 1.5 stop bits back in
On Saturday 10 May 2008 15:46:51 Gail Seidman wrote:
I don't know how to get information support. I sent a question and I am
getting a lot of responses that have nothing to do with my question.
That is because you have hijacked a thread. Start a new thread, and if anyone
knows the answer he
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
