Hello Steve,
Wednesday, Wednesday, October 13, 1999, you wrote:
Steve Lamb> Tuesday, October 12, 1999, 4:56:38 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> No hoops to jump through if options have to be turned on to use them.
Steve Lamb> The people who needs those options wouldn't know to turn them on. 3+
Steve Lamb> years of tech support at an ISP has taught me that.
You mean they would ask you to turn it on for them (g)
>> You may rather lose the files, but there are lots of paranoid people
>> out there that wouldn't. Their jobs may depend on it. Besides that's
>> what the "Yes to All" buttons are for. :-)
Steve Lamb> My job did and still does depend upon it. I play with production
machines
Steve Lamb> in a 24/7 environment.
>> If you only forgot one subject, then you'd only have gotten one
>> confirmation message.
Steve Lamb> No, you obviously didn't read the earlier messages. What about when I
Steve Lamb> send blank messages to my friends and relatives *BY CHOICE*?
>>> Mistakes happen, deal with it, don't dumb it down to where it causes extra
>>> work.
>> No extra work at all if all options have to be "turned on" to be used.
Steve Lamb> Counter intuitive to have the "safety" default to off.
>> It's an extreme case in that they overdo the confirmations. I'm not
>> asking for anything like that. Just a simple option that lets me know
>> if I didn't add a subject, that wouldn't affect you if you didn't turn
>> the option on.
Steve Lamb> You really don't get it, do you?
Steve Lamb> *You* want a confirmation for messages without subjects.
Steve Lamb> Ali over there (just an example, Ali) wants confirmations before
emptying
Steve Lamb> the trash.
Steve Lamb> Billy-Bo-Bob Brain wants confirmations before closing any window.
Steve Lamb> Big Bird wants a confirmation before moving folders.
Steve Lamb> Mr. Snuffiluffpolous wants confirmations before moving any message.
Steve Lamb> All of you say, "Well, just a simple option that lets me know..." and
what
Steve Lamb> do you have? 5 "simple" options so far. Need I continue the example to
show
Steve Lamb> you the end result or shall I assume you're intelligent enough to take it
from
Steve Lamb> here?
Outlook 2001 (g)
>> I don't want checks on any of the things you listed either, but if
>> they were options that I had to turn ON if I wanted them I wouldn't
>> have a problem with it. No extra work unless you WANT the option. But
>> the flexibility would be there if I needed it.
Steve Lamb> Then you have people complaining that the need to turn on all those
Steve Lamb> options. I believe I addressed that in the last message.
Best regards,
tracer
mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOTE: 1 MAILRUN PER DAY ONLY
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
