127.0.0.3 of The RIOT ACT
From: +-J (bitbucket_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 08/08/04
- Next message: francis gérard: "Re: Windows XP sevice pack 2"
- Previous message: +-J: "127.0.0.2 of The RIOT ACT"
- In reply to: Chad Harris: "Re: New Imformation on System Restore & Windows Installer Registry Corruption"
- Next in thread: +-J: "127.0.0.4 of The RIOT ACT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 06:42:52 +1000
Chad,
| two ocassions on these groups when MSFT OK'd posting up an attachment and posting in html (one wasn't a public group) and one was
a word group for the purpose of being able to review verbose logs.
+
>Chad to Kelly:
> > On one of the Office groups, because there have been an epidemic of problems installing Office 2003 SP1 requiring the Resource
Kit tools and interpretation of Hotfix_MSI logs, MSFT has encouraged posting attachments of the logs.
You did not pay attention to their reasons for doing so.
Without even having seen those two announcements, I am confidently able to inform you that it is so in order that:-
- Executable text-formatted files such as .(S|J)HTM(L), .VBS, .JS and .REG (yes, remember those *.REG files?) may be *downloaded*
and safely examined in a TEXT Editor by those who wish to do so, and *not* be a bandwidth-burden on those who wish *not* to do so.
- Encoded files such as MS Office *.DOC and *.XLS, Adobe *.PDF, Multimedia such as *.JPEG and *.MPEG, *binary* executables such as
*.EXE may be attached rather than "inserted" into posts for bandwidth reasons.
- Same applies to those "VERBOSE logs" which are most likely plain-text (i.e. *not* HTML) files anyway.
As for "MSFT OK'd posting in html" - their websites are over-bloated, they foist "Smart Tags" on us, etc.
Exactly what did they about "posting in html"?
You are also now referring to the use of ATTACHMENTs.
This has *nothing* to do with posting in HTML, (which is what started this off-topic {but interesting, nonetheless} discussion.)
ATTACHMENTs are downloaded separately.
| What's the problem for people if you use italics or a bold or underlined word?
Nothing wrong, per se. It is *how* you do it.
USENET Etiqette:
*bold*, /italic/ and _underlined_
ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!
| I can understand ...
Yet in the very same post you wrote...
||--(I'm not sure what that means ...
So, are you really, absolutely, positively sure at this point in time?
| Plato found that paste from Kelly's site small, and it gave his eyes a "workout"
|--that I call normal physiology.
Which is what Plato complained about...
Plato:
> Since your going to post in html with a mini font, pick one that is even smaller to give my eyes an even better workout.
So you replied...
Chad to Plato--
> This is another convenience, but I think one of your best bets is to use
> the Accessbility chek box so that you can rheostat anythng you see here.
> Use Kelly's Tweak Line 227 Left:
> Set IE Fonts to Smaller or Larger
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/regs_edits/iesmallertxt.reg
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm
YOU you are passing the buck TO Plato!
Also, your use of the word "rheostat' here is inappropriate. Only a person with electrical knowledge would comprehend what you were
attempting to convey. However, the entire sentence reads as superior nonsense. I believe you really meant "INconvenience"
To be continued...
--- Jan
- Next message: francis gérard: "Re: Windows XP sevice pack 2"
- Previous message: +-J: "127.0.0.2 of The RIOT ACT"
- In reply to: Chad Harris: "Re: New Imformation on System Restore & Windows Installer Registry Corruption"
- Next in thread: +-J: "127.0.0.4 of The RIOT ACT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
