 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / General 1 / November 2004Is it OK to post small image attachments here?
Hi folks, Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post small image files of an error box along with a text message about a problem with Access? Our official charter at http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm says no. A good alternative may be to include a link to such an image on your website. I'm assuming that the image would be more than a screendump of a MsgBox: such text is easily entered in your posting. -Tom. >Hi folks, > >Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post >small image files of an error box along with a text message about a >problem with Access? > Hi folks, > > Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post > small image files of an error box along with a text message about a > problem with Access? No, it's not. For one thing, very few of us would even think of opening an attachment now-a-days, and secondly, it's probably not necessary to see it. If you are getting an error, tell us what you are trying to do, how you are doing it, the error number/description and your version of Access.  SignatureFred Please only reply to this newsgroup. I do not reply to personal email. I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude. I've found it to be true that the process of composing a message about the problem is a major step toward figuring it out. It's as if the synapses firing while writing about a problem are the same ones involved in the solution to the problem. Once I understand my problem well enough to write it out in a few paragraphs, I am already much closer to solving it. You don't get that benefit by merely pasting an image. While it may be true that a picture tells a thousand words, you still need those words. The picture won't solve the problem, but sometimes the words will help. > Hi folks, > > Just wondered if, for the sake of clarity, it is permissible to post > small image files of an error box along with a text message about a > problem with Access? Hi Richard, I completely agree with the value of the process you describe below. I envisioned using BOT methods -- a complete description of the steps that lead to the error as well as an image of the error box. It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus writers. Such people need to be hunted down, dragged into the street and simply shot. I have lost all patience with those people and with the virtually useless, overpriced government we foolishly depend on to stop these idiots. A hi-tech vigilante team may ultimately be required. >I've made an amazing discovery. Forget the picture! If you can't put it >into words, you need to work on it some more. I'm not trying to be rude. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> small image files of an error box along with a text message about a >> problem with Access? > It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking > Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is > no longer practical due to the perfidious behavior of virus > writers. Sorry, but I don't understand why this is a problem. It's *where* you put the capture image that was in question, and it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not encoded. If you mean, however, that somehow screen captures have been rendered impossible by virus writers, then I've completely misunderstood. If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be vastly misplaced. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc >> It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking >> Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >If I *haven't* misunderstood, then your vehemence seems to me to be >vastly misplaced. My vehemence is NOT directed at anyone in this group -- unless, of course, some of the sub-human slime who write and/or distribute viruses or spyware are lurking here. It was simply an expression of extreme frustration over the fact that the entire Internet experience is slowly being rendered a nightmare by such people -- and that a perfect example of it is expressed in one of the responses to this very thread. On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image, well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved in two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to simply post an image here as an attachment. I don't HAVE a web site that I can use to post such images and by the time I go to the trouble of setting one up just for that purpose, I could have solved the problem, myself several times over. The fact that we cannot include clarifying imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous. However, I understand why it is not allowed -- because everyone is fearful of opening attachments and that fear is driven by the criminal behavior of a tiny minority of vicious, despicable human beings. So, we now have a perfectly wonderful mechanism for accurate communication on harmless subjects that is ruined by criminals who do not even deserve the common human decency of due process. Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it to the Usenet message, since in the former case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth,..." Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they read the text portion of the message. So what's the difference? My news reader does not download ANY attachment unless I tell it to. That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had an attachment. Lauren... you can get a free website, with plenty of storage for occastionally uploading a picture, at http://www.tripod.com, among other places. Tripod has been handy for me because you can specify use of the FrontPage extensions, which has let me easily create static websites with MS Front Page. And, as I keep a copy on my local machine, I can update then upload without a lot of effort. There'll be some ads displayed along with your site, but if it is a non-commercial site, that shouldn't be a problem (that is, you won't be taking a chance on advertising a competing product or service). Larry Linson Microsoft Access MVP > >> It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking > >> Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had > an attachment. Lauren Wilson <???@???.???> wrote in news:t33bo0pd9u207t09hr1vo362bcgr6sr8j2@ 4ax.com: > The fact that we cannot include clarifying > imagery with our messages here is simply ridiculous. So ... JUST POST IT. SignatureLyle -- use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date -- The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one. Lauren, a word from the wise. Mr. Fenton is a permanent fixture here. The old farts around here are used to a certain style of presenting inquiries and conversing. Mr. Fenton is particularly sensitive and reactive to posting styles that in his mind are "off". Something about your post irks him and he goes off on your "vehemence". Before you ever accept a single word of criticism from the likes of Mr. Fenton, you may wish to consider what he himself has posted to usenet, excerpted below with google archive links for verification. If you are wondering why this is an anonymous message, it is for self-protection. Some goons visited me a while back and threatened physical harm to my person in connection with certain posts made to this group and alleged to have originated from me. I have since moved. I am confident you understand my need for anonymity -- it's a matter of personal safety. Now for some of Fenton's own little usenet jewels: "The boy was the "active" participant in the entire interaction, with no real exposed vulnerability (aside from whatever might be implied by taking my cock in his mouth)." source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92EFA0025dfentonbwaynet%4024.168.128.78&out put=gplain "The images of boys' bare butts stayed with me as fantasy material for years." source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69rlf8%2414u%241%40news.nyu.edu&oe=UTF-8&ou tput=gplain "Also last night, a very, very cute young guy came into my room (he was one of those types who wraps the towel around his waist and it somehow ends up suspended about halfway down the round globes of his luscious bubble butt; ARRGGHH!!), and I smile at him. I would do anything he asked me to do, but I'm assuming, given the role I was projecting, that he's a dickhound (at least for now), so I offer him my cock, which he strokes and then bends over and takes into his mouth. But I guess something didn't feel right to him, and after a couple of strokes (just enough to get my dick good and wet), he departs." source: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92EFA0025dfentonbwaynet%4024.168.128.78&out put=gplain --- --- > >> It is profoundly unfortunate that the simple task of clicking > >> Alt-Print Screen to get an accurate image of an error box only is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > perfect example of it is expressed in one of the responses to this > very thread. . . . etc. Oh my! >Lauren, a word from the wise. Mr. Fenton is a permanent fixture here. >The old farts around here are used to a certain style of presenting [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > . . . etc. > Oh my! Attn David, Lauren's top posting and non snippage, 89 lines, Lyle's gif in the same thread, 21 lines. Order of magnitude? :-) > Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment > here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they I use Outlook Express 6. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do. But I find that if I hit a header that is attached to a message which turns out to include an attachment, changing groups will abort the download. (david) > . >>Perhaps I've missed something here: If I post an image attachment >>here, only those who want to see it will download it -- even if they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a message which turns out to include an attachment, > changing groups will abort the download. An alternative to that, familiar interface without a security hole every two weeks is http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ Good spam filtering on mail, not sure how it goes with those attachments as I don't use it for binary groups and I haven't noticed anything big in this group (I'm on BB BTW). >On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus >posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image, >well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved in >two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to simply post >an image here as an attachment. I don't think anyone else has pointed out that many news servers automatically drop posts that have binary attachments except in designated binaries newsgroups. You may succeed in posting the message but there is no guarantee that anyone will see it. > I don't HAVE a web site that I can >use to post such images and by the time I go to the trouble of setting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >harmless subjects that is ruined by criminals who do not even deserve >the common human decency of due process. The ban on binary attachments to non-binary newsgroups predates the concerns over viruses in images. >Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been the >case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than attaching it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That does not prevent me from reading the text of the message that had >an attachment. If you successfully post a message with an attachment it will be copied to every peer newsserver around the world. Many people do use online newsreaders that only download headers. I use an offline reader that downloads every message unless it triggers a killfile rule, in which case it rejects the whole message. If I find that people are starting to attach images I will modify the kill rules to reject posts with attachments. In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group. SignatureBernard Peek London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money. > In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds > binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group. SignatureLyle -- use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date -- The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one. begin 644 ohmy.PNG MB5!.1PT*&@H````-24A$4@```#H````]"`(```!SW.W'`````7-21T(`KLX< MZ0````1G04U!``"QCPO\804````@8TA230``>B8``("$``#Z````@.@``'4P M``#J8```.I@``!=PG+I1/````0%)1$%4:$/MF5L.@S`,!-O['[JE316B&!`X MZRIN!_'#*ZS6PV+(_7%+M2QR$ZV9M+Y`2&0M<H/+!0R1!N,N[M:T!09@`(9( M!G`7=VUS2^Y&4H&[$[K;?NROH?C>N[<I^2CTP&!_3!0I99E4KI6(W+[X?AA^ MQ-V.;,D3-MKB9$J&S1R8-QFT];TTFN=1NW0#[<G(G;!GT);X_&A_`,->;U## MV(;:>?^.S_2X>]#*U$-!TPA^N450ZV@WYZ5RM!U'+#<.@\^KU.'!YKQA:%<^ MU.*DE%OJ_IW.1N!N&KD.W%67>))!=6_'.,BE(QM*!@=SJDM@%W9A-Y(!W,5= ;F];D;B053TNE![&=EJ`+`````$E%3D2N0F"" ` end LOL >"OH MY" > > In any case I will not offer any help to anyone who adds > > binary attachments to their posts in a non-binary group. A rebel without a cause. > On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus > posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image, > well, there is no comparison between the amount of labor involved > in two approaches. It is F A R easier, quicker and cheaper to > simply post an image here as an attachment. . . If the world revolves around you, then that's a valid choice. You can probably imagine that I dispute the basic premise of that formulation. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc >>On the subject of posting the image here as an attachment versus >>posting the image on a web site and including a URL to the image, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If the world revolves around you, then that's a valid choice. Of course it doesn't revolve around Lauren, it revolves around me. Want proof? Take food for example, it has no taste until I put it in MY mouth + anything interesting that ever happened to me, happened while I was in the room. (Cat). > Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been > the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unless I tell it to. That does not prevent me from reading the > text of the message that had an attachment. 1. If you attach it to the message, the incoded imgage has to be distributed to every news server that carries CDMA. If there are 100,000 news servers carrying this newsgroup, that's 100,000 copies, vs. 1 copy from putting it on a website. 2. If you don't have technical knowledge about these kinds of issues, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to declare your judgments about how things should or should not be done. In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that prohibition. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc > In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image > attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you > disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that > prohibition. Only stupid people enforce stupid rules. John why don't you take your head out of your a.s for a minute... I bet you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally. -- Stephen Lebans http://www.lebans.com Access Code, Tips and Tricks Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit. > > In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image > > attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you > > disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that > > prohibition. > > Only stupid people enforce stupid rules. > John why don't you take your head out of your a.s for a minute... I bet > you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally. The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif Oh, I know, it'll lead on to other things right? Before you know it we'll have hardcore streaming porn, heroin and crack cocaine, right? Wrong, actually. No-one here has yet given me any reason, (let alone a convincing reason), why the sql server groups don't have problems, even though they don't "enforce" all the silly rules. What they do have are the brightest minds giving the best answers to the toughest questions. The S/N ration is vastly better than that in c.d.m.a. Go, as the Americans would say, figure. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide which of us has his head up his arse. > The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif But if everyone does, the group becomes useless. Never heard of the tragedy of the commons, eh? SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc > > The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif > > But if everyone does, the group becomes useless. > > Never heard of the tragedy of the commons, eh? No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules, even if they are clear, easy to find, and easy to abide by. He wants things his way, just like some others here. >> > The world will not end because someone posts a 3K .gif >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if they are clear, easy to find, and easy to abide by. He wants things > his way, just like some others here. Larry This kind of inuuendo and personal attack carried out by you and David, and abetted by a few others, in the past, resulted in our being saddled with the contributions of XMVP and his aliases for much too long a time. Please, stop. It's especially insulting for A & B to trade insults to C. At least, confront C directly. > Larry > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's especially insulting for A & B to trade > insults to C. At least, confront C directly. Lyle, I won't trade insults with you because you are clearly operating at a handicap. Larry > > Larry > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Larry Spoken like true Texas white trash. > Spoken like true Texas white trash. But, at least, posting under my own name (as, to his credit, was Lyle). To its discredit, this is from the header of "Anonymous Sender"'s post: > From: Anonymous Sender > <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > <abuse@remailer.metacolo.com>. > X-No-Archive: Yes I give its pronoucements all the weight due a troll who hides behind an anonymizer and uses "X-No-Archive: Yes" to try to cover its tracks. Larry, are you starting to wonder if maybe you and your boy loving buddy, David Fenton, spooked another newbie, i.e., Lauren? He hasn't posted since you morons entered the thread. Bhwahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahaha! What a crack! You better email him a consolation and get him to post something, if only to save face. Bwhahhhahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! > > Larry > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Larry > No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules, I don't *like* rules. I've never met anyone who does actually. Are you telling me that you do, in fact, derive joy therefrom? If yes this would explain a few things. Semantics really. People don't *like* rukes per se, they tolerate them because of the beneifts they bring. When rules and rule-keeping get out of hand then the costs outweigh the benefits. And when rules become out-dated they should be changed or scrapped. Did you see this story? http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/70/01_95_m.html Here's a rule that had a good intent, but became ridiculous when applied to the letter, without regard for any trivialities like common sense. It's also a case of political correctness run amock, and the two are closely related in my book. Anyway Larry, to sum up, no I don't "hate" all rules, neither am I an anarchist if that's what you were implying. Out of the 35 or so "rules" n the FAQ, there are only two or three with which I disagree. And even there, it's not so much a case of disagreeing with the rule as wishing people would stop trying to "enforce" them all the time, for every sngle infraction. It makes us look like a bunch of kids in cdma - as opposed to the grown-ups in the other database groups. -- btw If you're really that concerned with bandwidth, there's one suggestion in the faq you might want to start looking at more closely. That's the one that tells you how to deal with a troll. > > No, it's not that, David, it's just that John doesn't like rules, <snip snip snip> > btw If you're really that concerned with bandwidth, there's one suggestion > in the faq you might want to start looking at more closely. That's the one > that tells you how to deal with a troll. Yes. Please. If you disagree with some or all of the rules, or provisions of the charter, there is a defined process to try to change them. Thus far, you have not seen fit to initiate that process. I fail to see why you think it appropriate to provide support for Our Resident Troll by wanting to argue about the rules and encouraging people to ignore them. > btw If you're really that concerned > with bandwidth, there's one suggestion > in the faq you might want to start looking > at more closely. That's the one that tells > you how to deal with a troll. You have certainly been around this newsgroup long enough to know that the approach to which you refer does not succeed with our Resident Troll (who I take to be another incarnation of Don P Mellon). Thus I take this as just another snipe from you. If you had forgotten that no approach has kept Our Resident Troll from continuing to visit the newsgroup to slander David by implying that David's old post indicate criminal activity, not just sexual orientation, then this is a reminder. If you just don't care, you are allying yourself with the slanderer -- and I would hope that you wouldn't want to do that. There are those of us who feel it is proper to use the headers of those anonymized messages to show new users here that "Anonymous Sender" isn't the handle of someone warning them out of the goodness of his (its) heart. And, I suspect that, whether you think that appropriate or not, there will be some who will continue to do so. That, at least, is not prohibited by the rules and charter. > If you disagree with some or all of the rules, or provisions of the charter, > there is a defined process to try to change them. Thus far, you have not > seen fit to initiate that process. Larry, you are simply pathetic. The "process" starts RIGHT HERE in cdma with something called DISCUSSION. Ever heard of that, you piece of Texas white trash. Your attempt to malign Johnny and foreclose discussion runs contrary to the very purpose of USENET. You are a bad person for usenet and always have been. > I fail to see why you think it > appropriate to provide support for Our Resident Troll by wanting to argue [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > old post indicate criminal activity, not just sexual orientation, then this > is a reminder. Bewahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!! Texas white trash Larry at it again with transparent and feeble bullshit about slander. Once again, no one has accused David of criminal activity by his statement that a "boy" sucked his cock. If criminal activity is important to you Texas White Trash Larry, then take it up with David. It is quite apparent that Texas white trash has an affinity for getting their cocks sucked by "boys" with "bubble butts" in public bathhouses. More power to you. Move to New York and knock it out, hombre. You noobs who don't understand where this is coming from, take a look at David Fenton's posts on google: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92EFA0025dfentonbwaynet%4024.168.128.78&out put=gplain http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69rlf8%2414u%241%40news.nyu.edu&oe=UTF-8&ou tput=gplain > If you just don't care, you are allying yourself with the slanderer -- and I > would hope that you wouldn't want to do that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some who will continue to do so. That, at least, is not prohibited by the > rules and charter. If you are wondering why this is an anonymous message, it is for self-protection. Some goons visited me a while back and threatened physical harm to my person in connection with certain posts made to this group and alleged to have originated from me. I have since moved. I am confident you understand my need for anonymity -- it's a matter of personal safety. Not only that, Stephen, but having ones head in a protected position can save one from drinking through the night, and, while inebriated, posting attacks which he or she cannot justify, and is unwilling to address or discuss, either "only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit", or by private e-mail. John is a contributor of high-quality information and help here; I think he does not deserve this rudeness. Did I ever mention to you that I find it astounding that a person on his website can provide a procedure taken from the post of someone whom he insults, and to whose private e-mail and public postings he will not reply? > John why don't you take your head out of your a.s for a minute... I bet > you will find it a lot easier to breath and think rationally. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Access Code, Tips and Tricks > Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit. > > In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image > > attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you > > disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that > > prohibition. > > Only stupid people enforce stupid rules. Nothing better than peevish insults and caviling followed up with a feeble attempt to foreclose argument by ye ol' thunderous appeal to the "charter". Johnny, thus the buttfucker* only begs the question, right? Tell the buttfucker that it is we who make the rules and we who can change the rules, especially if it is, that's right, a stupid rule. * newbies, Lauren: "buttfucker" is a fond CDMA reference to David W. Fenton. See: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92EFA0025dfentonbwaynet%4024.168.128.78&out put=gplain http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69rlf8%2414u%241%40news.nyu.edu&oe=UTF-8&ou tput=gplain >> Also, I do not understand your comment above: "it's always been >> the case that it's better to put it on a web page rather than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >100,000 news servers carrying this newsgroup, that's 100,000 copies, >vs. 1 copy from putting it on a website. Of course. I foolishly looked at this only from the posting perspective. Thanks for reminding me of the server side of things. However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images? If it is, what about the groups that are almost EXCLUSIVELY images? Surely they suffer the same problem of replication. >2. If you don't have technical knowledge about these kinds of >issues, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to declare your judgments >about how things should or should not be done. Oh I understand the technology. It ain't rocket science. I just overlooked one aspect of it in my earlier post -- probably because I never work with the server end of this system. >In any event, the charter of this newsgroup, which prohibits image >attachments, should settle the issue definitively, even if you >disagree (however justifiably) with the reasoning behind that >prohibition. What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security, or something else? > However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images? The PRIMARY reason is because these newsgroups date to a time when many people (and servers) had dial-up connections and small hard disks. It is STILL the case that my (alternative) news provider only provides 36 hours of live postings, and does not host ANY binary groups. Some people will also wish to be careful about binaries of any sort, including (because of the demonstrated viral exploits) image binaries. But even if there were no reasons for not posting binaries, the fact is that this is a non-binary group by agreement: people read this group on the understanding that it is a non-binary group, and hope for your courtesy. (david) > What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security, > or something else? The voice of reason...well said David. Looking back I wish had posted a response similiar to yours instead of telling John to take his head our of his a.s. -- Stephen Lebans http://www.lebans.com Access Code, Tips and Tricks Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit. > > However, is that the PRIMARY reason for the ban on posting images? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What IS the rationale? Is it strictly the bandwidth issue, security, > > or something else? > case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of > course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not > encoded. Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a wonder if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-) What's top posting and non-snippers. (vbg) SignatureSlainte Craig Alexander Morrison >> case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, of >> course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not >> encoded. > > Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a wonder > if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-) > What's top posting and non-snippers. (vbg) LOL! at least your sig sep works :-) >> case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, >> of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not >> encoded. > > Given all the top posters and non-snippers around here it'll be a > wonder if anyone noticed the bandwidth taken by an image :-) Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc >>>case, only those who want to see the image will download it. And, >>>of course, it's a more efficient use of bandwidth, since it's not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of > lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads. At least it may be relevant content. > Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of > lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads. Let's see what that order of magnitude is. SignatureLyle -- use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date -- The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one. Lyle Fairfield <LookItUp@FFDBA.Com> wrote in news:Xns95953E2957D9FFDBA@ 130.133.1.4: >> Even a small image is an order of magnitude greater in number of >> lines than even the worst top-posted multi-quoted threads. > > Let's see what that order of magnitude is. SignatureLyle -- use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date -- The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one. But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C (david) > Hi Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >> small image files of an error box along with a text message about a > >> problem with Access? >But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can >copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C > >(david) Using Windows XP Professional SP2 I am not able to select or copy ANYTHING from most error boxes, especially the ones produced by ANY version of Access. This is ANOTHER exasperating thing that I failed to comment on. Thanks for reminding me. >> Hi Richard, >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> small image files of an error box along with a text message about a >> >> problem with Access? >>But in compensation, on recent versions of Windows you can >>copy the text from a message box, using just CTRL C [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > version of Access. This is ANOTHER exasperating thing that I failed > to comment on. Thanks for reminding me. Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus. > Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to > select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus. An update on that, Interaction.MsgBox allows ^C to copy the text but Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-( > Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-( Time to dump Eval("MsgBox()"). We use r_Msgbox, which leads to a private function which displays a form -- and the MORE button allows you to capture the text of the message. On the other hand, if MS ever correctly and usefully exposes Application.Msgbox, we would probably drift back to that. BTW, to my disgust I recently found that the documented behaviour for unhandled errors is totally ignored when running from an MDE. You get the 'eval' msgbox, not Interaction.MsgBox. (If you are running /runtime, you get the 'eval' msgbox, instead of an orderly shutdown). And if you are using Raise to customise the message, your custom message is lost. (david) > > Not to be argumentative or anything but, Oh yes you can :-) No need to > > select anything, just press Ctrl+C while the messagebox has the focus. > > An update on that, Interaction.MsgBox allows ^C to copy the text but > Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-( >>Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-( > > Time to dump Eval("MsgBox()"). We use r_Msgbox, which leads > to a private function which displays a form -- and the MORE > button allows you to capture the text of the message. I may have to start doing that, I use Eval to enable alternative alphabets. A form would pose more options as well, e.g. a timeout autoresponse could be useful in some circumstances. > On the other hand, if MS ever correctly and usefully exposes > Application.Msgbox, we would probably drift back to that. Is there a difference between interaction. and application.? I haven't tried it. > BTW, to my disgust I recently found that the documented > behaviour for unhandled errors is totally ignored when running > from an MDE. You get the 'eval' msgbox, not Interaction.MsgBox. > (If you are running /runtime, you get the 'eval' msgbox, > instead of an orderly shutdown). And if you are using Raise > to customise the message, your custom message is lost. nice. > Is there a difference between interaction. and application.? > tried it. No, there /is no application.msgbox/. But there should be. Using Eval to get the access msgbox was a kludge in Access 2000: In Access 2003 they have no excuse at all. (david) > >>Eval("MsgBox()") won't, guess which I use most of the time :-( > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > nice. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.