"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l2rtedF4d20U11@mid.individual.net...

On 11/02/2024 09:40, billy bookcase wrote:

"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:uq8tjb$2inm$1@dont-email.me...

On 10/02/2024 11:38, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:19:30 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

The obfuscation lies firstly in identifying the message solely by
its Message-ID <l2hd1rFfnc3U49@mid.individual.net>; which for
myself at least, I'm forced to admit, is about as useful
as is a chocolate teapot; rather than identifying it say by the
posting time, which would make it instantly identifiable.

Message-ID is the uusal way of referring to previous messages on Usenet.

Unlike dates and times, it uniquely identifies a specific message. The vast
majority of Usenet clients - including all but one of those which appear in
the top fifty clients in the stats - allow searching by Message-ID. Many go
a stage further, and make a Message-ID which is quoted in the text
clickable, so users don't even need to search for the message in question, >>>> it's a direct link.

The one exception to that just so happens to be the one that you, and only >>>> you, use, which also happens to be software that has been obsolete for >>>> fifteen years and was widely regarded as poorly designed even when it was >>>> current. So this isn't a hill I would recommend you die on.

Feel free to explain how I open this message with Thunderbird?

Contrary to what some experts appear to think OE allows searching by message >> ID. Via the message headers. What it doesn't do is distinguish the original >> message from follow ups which may also quote the message ID.

Whereas by giving the posting time that enables the reader to immediately
go to the message as OE easily switches to order sent, from subject order
or sort by sender.

Although quite possibly it doesn't contain all the "new" features found so essential
by the FOMO's

You're using software that was discontinued nearly 20 years ago.

So what ?

This is not FOMO. It is persisting with obsolete software and refusing to acknowledge
that it is obsolete.

But its not obsolete. That's the whole point.

Clearly Microsoft and others would prefer people like yourself to believe
that it is so that they can flog you the new version with all the
"new and unecessary features"

OE along with Freecell one of the reasons I persist with XP and 32 bit.
Mail has all sorts of issues while Freecell renders in a small window in
W10 and doesn't even exist on Mint despite claims to the contrary.
Sudoing the games package merely provides four specifications including Freecell and one poorly rendered patience game And while dl works fine
on 32 bit Mint it stumbles on 64 bit.

I do not consider frequent issues with the message store becoming corrupted to be a
"feature" to which I would like to return, nor the numerous security issues, lack of a
spell checker,

OE has a spell checker; although it's not automatic.

As also seem to be the case with the spell checker being used by Mark
Googe; given the sentence quoted above.*

Ooops!


bb

* BTW under normal circumstances, such a spelling lame would only be deserving of derision.

While the (sic) correction you applied to one spelling lame is usually
reserved for questionable facts. Not spelling mistakes. Where there
is no ambiguity as to the intended meaning. HTH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:20:19 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:l2rtedF4d20U11@mid.individual.net...

You're using software that was discontinued nearly 20 years ago.

So what ?

So this is 2024. The rest of us are behaving like it's 2024.

This is not FOMO. It is persisting with obsolete software and refusing to acknowledge
that it is obsolete.

But its not obsolete. That's the whole point.

Clearly Microsoft and others would prefer people like yourself to believe >that it is so that they can flog you the new version with all the
"new and unecessary features"

Microsoft is not the only software vendor.

As also seem to be the case with the spell checker being used by Mark
Googe; given the sentence quoted above.*

Skitt's Law.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

* BTW under normal circumstances, such a spelling lame would only be deserving
of derision.

While the (sic) correction you applied to one spelling lame is usually
reserved for questionable facts. Not spelling mistakes. Where there
is no ambiguity as to the intended meaning. HTH

You are mistaken. Grammarly say 'sic' "marks a *spelling* or grammatical error. It
means that the text was quoted verbatim, and the mistake it marks appears in the
source." (Emphasis mine) [4]

Don't believe Grammarly? How about Merriam-Webster:

"What is denoted by sic is that the word or phrase that precedes it occurs in the
original passage being quoted or name being used and was not introduced by the writer
doing the quoting. Sometimes the quoted text contains an error of grammar or *spelling*, but other times it might not contain an error at all, but some kind of
language or phrasing that might be unexpected." (Emphasis mine) [5]

Or the Blue Book On Grammar [6]:

<Begin Quote>
Sic is a Latin term meaning "thus." It is used to indicate that something incorrectly
written is intentionally being left as it was in the original. Sic is usually italicized and always surrounded by brackets to indicate that it was not part of the
original. Place [sic] right after the error.

Example: She wrote, "They made there [sic] beds."

Note: The correct sentence should have been, "They made their beds."
<End Quote>

Or Wikipedia [7]:

"The Latin adverb sic (pronounced [s?k]; "thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum,
"thus was it written") inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the
quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text,
complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise non-standard *spelling*, punctuation, or grammar. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning,
or other matter that might be interpreted as an error of transcription." (Emphasis
Mine)

Any other demonstrably false claims you'd like to make or are you done for today?

That it's normally considered bad manners to go out of one's way to correct other peoples' mistakes ? Where they are likely to otherwise go unnoticed,
or be considered unimportant ?


bb

[5]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sic-meaning-usage-editorial-citation [6] https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/sic/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l33un9F4d1vU15@mid.individual.net...

On 14/02/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

* BTW under normal circumstances, such a spelling lame would only be deserving
of derision.

While the (sic) correction you applied to one spelling lame is usually >>>> reserved for questionable facts. Not spelling mistakes. Where there
is no ambiguity as to the intended meaning. HTH

You are mistaken. Grammarly say 'sic' "marks a *spelling* or grammatical error. It
means that the text was quoted verbatim, and the mistake it marks appears in the
source." (Emphasis mine) [4]

Don't believe Grammarly? How about Merriam-Webster:

"What is denoted by sic is that the word or phrase that precedes it occurs in the
original passage being quoted or name being used and was not introduced by the writer
doing the quoting. Sometimes the quoted text contains an error of grammar or
*spelling*, but other times it might not contain an error at all, but some kind of
language or phrasing that might be unexpected." (Emphasis mine) [5]

Or the Blue Book On Grammar [6]:

<Begin Quote>
Sic is a Latin term meaning "thus." It is used to indicate that something incorrectly
written is intentionally being left as it was in the original. Sic is usually
italicized and always surrounded by brackets to indicate that it was not part of the
original. Place [sic] right after the error.

Example: She wrote, "They made there [sic] beds."

Note: The correct sentence should have been, "They made their beds."
<End Quote>

Or Wikipedia [7]:

"The Latin adverb sic (pronounced [s?k]; "thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat
scriptum,
"thus was it written") inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the
quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text,
complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise non-standard *spelling*, >>> punctuation, or grammar. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty
reasoning,
or other matter that might be interpreted as an error of transcription." (Emphasis
Mine)

Any other demonstrably false claims you'd like to make or are you done for today?

That it's normally considered bad manners to go out of one's way to correct >> other peoples' mistakes ? Where they are likely to otherwise go unnoticed, >> or be considered unimportant ?

Your / your newsreader's vandalism of posts has now reached the point where this post
is appearing as a new thread to my newsreader as the "References" header appears to be
absent from this follow-up.

That post was a truncated repost - a copy and paste from a post which has been sitting in the moderation queue since this morning. I deliberately didn't put (Repost)
in the subject line which I assumed might start a new thread in any case as that
might be seen as implied criticism of either the system itself or of the moderators;
both of whose services are provided for free,

And so I strongly resent your accusation of "vandalism" which is totally unmerited

I've given my reasons for labelling subthreads elsewhere. If reading new sub threads
is too much of a burden then the solution is fairly obvious, is it not ?

For the love of all that's holy, please stop tampering with subjects and consider using
a newsreader that wasn't considered obsolete nearly two decades ago.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

I could if I chose use Opera Mail which like Thunderbird uses different colours to distinguish different posters.

As I don't need different colours when reading books I see no real need them
in a newsreader

As to your claim above, I did not "*correct* other peoples' mistakes". Had I done so,
there would have been no need for my use of "[sic]". I copied the text exactly as it
originally appeared and indicated that I had done so, and that I had not introduced the
error when copying it.

No fair enough, my mistake. You didn't correct it. Which would have largely gone unnoticed if you had. Instead you took pains to point it out, instead. For all I know in Thunderbird you may even been able to make the (sic)
a different colour from the remainder of your post.



<remainder snipped >


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14 Feb 2024 at 20:35:47 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l33un9F4d1vU15@mid.individual.net...

On 14/02/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

* BTW under normal circumstances, such a spelling lame would only be deserving
of derision.

While the (sic) correction you applied to one spelling lame is usually >>>>> reserved for questionable facts. Not spelling mistakes. Where there
is no ambiguity as to the intended meaning. HTH

You are mistaken. Grammarly say 'sic' "marks a *spelling* or grammatical >>>> error. It
means that the text was quoted verbatim, and the mistake it marks appears >>>> in the
source." (Emphasis mine) [4]

Don't believe Grammarly? How about Merriam-Webster:

"What is denoted by sic is that the word or phrase that precedes it occurs >>>> in the
original passage being quoted or name being used and was not introduced by >>>> the writer
doing the quoting. Sometimes the quoted text contains an error of grammar or
*spelling*, but other times it might not contain an error at all, but some >>>> kind of
language or phrasing that might be unexpected." (Emphasis mine) [5]

Or the Blue Book On Grammar [6]:

<Begin Quote>
Sic is a Latin term meaning "thus." It is used to indicate that something >>>> incorrectly
written is intentionally being left as it was in the original. Sic is usually
italicized and always surrounded by brackets to indicate that it was not >>>> part of the
original. Place [sic] right after the error.

Example: She wrote, "They made there [sic] beds."

Note: The correct sentence should have been, "They made their beds."
<End Quote>

Or Wikipedia [7]:

"The Latin adverb sic (pronounced [s?k]; "thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat
scriptum,
"thus was it written") inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates >>>> that the
quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the >>>> source text,
complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise non-standard *spelling*,
punctuation, or grammar. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty
reasoning,
or other matter that might be interpreted as an error of transcription." >>>> (Emphasis
Mine)

Any other demonstrably false claims you'd like to make or are you done for >>>> today?

That it's normally considered bad manners to go out of one's way to correct >>> other peoples' mistakes ? Where they are likely to otherwise go unnoticed, >>> or be considered unimportant ?

Your / your newsreader's vandalism of posts has now reached the point where >> this post
is appearing as a new thread to my newsreader as the "References" header
appears to be
absent from this follow-up.

That post was a truncated repost - a copy and paste from a post which has been
sitting in the moderation queue since this morning. I deliberately didn't put (Repost)
in the subject line which I assumed might start a new thread in any case as that
might be seen as implied criticism of either the system itself or of the moderators;
both of whose services are provided for free,

And so I strongly resent your accusation of "vandalism" which is totally unmerited

I've given my reasons for labelling subthreads elsewhere. If reading new sub threads
is too much of a burden then the solution is fairly obvious, is it not ?

Deliberately altering subject lines is vandalism in the view of some of us.
And managing to send posts without reference headers is double vandalism, and will fool all but telepathic newsreaders. There is no official way of creating subthreads by altering the subject, and a range of news readers will deal with it differently. The case for vandalism is a pretty solid one.

For the love of all that's holy, please stop tampering with subjects and
consider using
a newsreader that wasn't considered obsolete nearly two decades ago.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

I could if I chose use Opera Mail which like Thunderbird uses different colours
to distinguish different posters.

As I don't need different colours when reading books I see no real need them in a newsreader

As to your claim above, I did not "*correct* other peoples' mistakes". Had I >> done so,
there would have been no need for my use of "[sic]". I copied the text
exactly as it
originally appeared and indicated that I had done so, and that I had not
introduced the
error when copying it.

No fair enough, my mistake. You didn't correct it. Which would have largely gone unnoticed if you had. Instead you took pains to point it out, instead. For all I know in Thunderbird you may even been able to make the (sic)
a different colour from the remainder of your post.

<remainder snipped >

bb

--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:l34ukdFpfdnU1@mid.individual.net...

Deliberately altering subject lines is vandalism in the view of some of us.

From Roger Hayter 28/01/2024

Re: Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´
(was:
Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´)

And at least mine actually fitted on the subject line

<snip>


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works?

Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter) that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally irrelevant in any case)

In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the
Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims
from profit making organisations with caution.?


bb

* Not that I've got anything against Bill. Bill commissioned a Postscript interpreter for Windows which effectively broke Adobe's monopoly.But that
was then.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14/02/2024 23:44, billy bookcase wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:l34ukdFpfdnU1@mid.individual.net...

Deliberately altering subject lines is vandalism in the view of some of us.

From Roger Hayter 28/01/2024

Re: Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´
(was:
Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´)

And at least mine actually fitted on the subject line

Surely, it would simply be polite to agree to modify your behaviour, bb?

I don't know whether using OE is an issue, but swapping over wouldn't
take long.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:26:36 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

If you have some ire to aim at Microsoft, I would respectfully suggest
that he is the wrong target.

MS has become so big there is no single target. Like Google.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-02-15, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15/02/2024 14:33, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:26:36 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

If you have some ire to aim at Microsoft, I would respectfully suggest
that he is the wrong target.

MS has become so big there is no single target. Like Google.

So an Organisation Chart showing the immediate reports into the CEO for Microsoft can't exist in your mind then?

You might want to take a look at the following:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/microsoft

Ditto for Google:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/google

Or Alphabet, if you prefer:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/alphabet

Regards

S.P. :-)

If this were a legal group, one might be minded to point out that all
of those org charts list people from multiple corporations, or in other
words, "no single target".

If this were not a legal group then one might be minded to think that
an org chart which lists one "Astro Teller, Captain of Moonshots" is
an indication that one has slipped from reality into a fabulous parallel dimension of make believe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 23:45:55 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

On 15/02/2024 14:33, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

So an Organisation Chart showing the immediate reports into the CEO for Microsoft can't exist in your mind then?

We can all point at the moon.

I restate my point: *Regardless* of pretty org charts, you won't find
"the person" at MS/Google that can actually make *the decision*. Rather
similar to UK government actually. Despite a plethora of ministers, you
can never actually single anyone out for any bad decision. And in the
context of a discussion of the travails of post office sub postmasters
that is germane because as we all know, no one anywhere will be found to
have done anything wrong. (Well they might find a few cleaners that could
have swept a bit faster. But ministers ? You're 'aving a giraffe.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16 Feb 2024 at 09:00:08 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 16/02/2024 01:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2024-02-15, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15/02/2024 14:33, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:26:36 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

If you have some ire to aim at Microsoft, I would respectfully suggest >>>>> that he is the wrong target.

MS has become so big there is no single target. Like Google.

So an Organisation Chart showing the immediate reports into the CEO for
Microsoft can't exist in your mind then?

You might want to take a look at the following:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/microsoft

Ditto for Google:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/google

Or Alphabet, if you prefer:

https://www.theinformation.com/org-charts/alphabet

If this were a legal group, one might be minded to point out that all
of those org charts list people from multiple corporations, or in other
words, "no single target".

The CEO is the person at the top, if one is looking for the top single target. The others reporting into them are targets if one desires one's "single target" to be more, er, targetted. :-)

If this were not a legal group then one might be minded to think that
an org chart which lists one "Astro Teller, Captain of Moonshots" is
an indication that one has slipped from reality into a fabulous parallel
dimension of make believe.

That's Dr. Astro Teller to you. :-)

Eric "Astro" Teller is a real person - his entry of Wikipedia will tell
you all that you need to know about him and more.

But if you don't trust Wikipedia, he holds a BSc in Computer Science
from Stanford (1992), which can be used to verify he is a real person
rather than an entity from "a fabulous parallel dimension of make believe".

As is true of his MSc in Symbolic and Heuristic Computation from 1993,
(also Stanford's Department of Computer Science).

If you believe the records at Stanford are anything less than genuine,
his PhD in Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence) from 1998 can be verified with Carnegie Mellon University, who will also be able to
confirm he was the recipient of the prestigious Hertz fellowship, which,
as a general rule of thumb, isn't awarded to "a fabulous parallel
dimension of make believe".

If you're still not convinced, you can watch him being interviewed by
Goldman Sachs here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BKgrbGfB-U and
watch a TED Talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t13Rq4oc7A where
he starts with reference to the original "Moonshot".

I would go so far as to guarantee that you've even heard of some of the
tech for which he and his team are responsible, without perhaps
realising that someone from "a fabulous parallel dimension of make
believe" was behind it, as Dr. Teller was heading Google X, (now simply
"X", not to be confused with the other "X", formerly known as
"Twitter"), where he holds the title "Captain of Moonshots", during the development of Google Glass and Google's driverless car tech.

Not bad for someone from "a fabulous parallel dimension of make believe".

Regards

S.P.

Would you accept "relentless, totally irony-immune prententiousness" then?

--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l36e7tF4d20U28@mid.individual.net...

On 15/02/2024 10:48, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works? >>

Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE
spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter) >> that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally
irrelevant in any case)

In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the
Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims
from profit making organisations with caution.?

I can state with reasonable certainty that Microsoft are not in the least bit interested in your posts here, (or indeed anyone else's), and so cannot bear witness to anything contained therein.

As to Microsoft's easily verifiable claim, which you seem to be attempting to challenge, I invite you to do the following:

My Spellchecker works perfectly well, thank you very much.

Thus I have no possible interest in verifying Microsoft's claim; whatever
that might be.

<snip>



bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:uqku0p$39n0r$5@dont-email.me...

On 14/02/2024 23:44, billy bookcase wrote:

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:l34ukdFpfdnU1@mid.individual.net...

Deliberately altering subject lines is vandalism in the view of some of us. >>
From Roger Hayter 28/01/2024

Re: Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´
(was:
Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens 'wrongly fined for driving in London Ulez´)

And at least mine actually fitted on the subject line

Surely, it would simply be polite to agree to modify your behaviour, bb?

I don't know whether using OE is an issue, but swapping over wouldn't take long.

Before handing out any more sage advice, it might be worth bearing in
mind that what's being talked about here is an exchange between two contributors to a single thread on this NewsGroup; where one of
the participants appears to be getting rather upset*.

bb

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation







bb




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l38sh1F4d20U34@mid.individual.net...

On 16/02/2024 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l36e7tF4d20U28@mid.individual.net...

On 15/02/2024 10:48, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works? >>>>

Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE >>>> spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)
that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally >>>> irrelevant in any case)

In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the
Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims >>>> from profit making organisations with caution.?

I can state with reasonable certainty that Microsoft are not in the least bit
interested in your posts here, (or indeed anyone else's), and so cannot bear
witness to anything contained therein.

As to Microsoft's easily verifiable claim, which you seem to be attempting to
challenge, I invite you to do the following:

My Spellchecker works perfectly well, thank you very much.

Thus I have no possible interest in verifying Microsoft's claim; whatever
that might be.

<snip>

Would now be a good time to point out your snipping of the text that preceded the link
above a couple of posts back? You have removed the introductory phrase "See the final
paragraph in..." which, had you not snipped it for reasons unknown, would have served
as a reminder as to what Microsoft's claim might be, so you would not need to feign
ignorance of it when attempting to walk away.

For the avoidance of doubt, that final paragraph says: "However, Outlook Express is
offered as a downloadable product, and it does not include its own dictionary. Outlook
Express does can [sic] use another programs [sic] dictionary, such as Microsoft Word,
to check the spelling of text. Without another program's dictionary to access, Outlook
Express cannot use the spelling checker."

As I said, OE needs feeding a dictionary before it is usable. It does not work "out of
the box".

And as *I* said, in a the quoted passage which still appears at the very
top of this post

quote:

the gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)*

:unquote

To repeat " (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)"

I will take your statement that you "have no possible interest in verifying Microsoft's
claim" as you saying you're conceding the point, without actually saying you're
conceding the point.

What claim ?


bb

* And that's not to mention the gibberish I still manage to post, even
with its help.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l3gv52F4d20U41@mid.individual.net...

On 17/02/2024 13:18, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l38sh1F4d20U34@mid.individual.net...

On 16/02/2024 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l36e7tF4d20U28@mid.individual.net...

On 15/02/2024 10:48, billy bookcase wrote:

"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2uqb9F4d1vU9@mid.individual.net...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/spelling-checker-does-not-run-on-message-in-outlook-express-5-35237572-6df2-dbd8-9ca5-33d323cae263
unless you're claiming you know better than Microsoft about how OE works?

Well as you yourself. if not Microsoft can bear witness to the
gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE >>>>>> spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)
that claim is quite obviously specious and beyond merit. (If not totally >>>>>> irrelevant in any case)

In addition surely shouldn't take the posthumous intercession of the >>>>>> Late Professor Mandy Rice Davies to cause you to treat all such claims >>>>>> from profit making organisations with caution.?

I can state with reasonable certainty that Microsoft are not in the least bit
interested in your posts here, (or indeed anyone else's), and so cannot bear
witness to anything contained therein.

As to Microsoft's easily verifiable claim, which you seem to be attempting to
challenge, I invite you to do the following:

My Spellchecker works perfectly well, thank you very much.

Thus I have no possible interest in verifying Microsoft's claim; whatever >>>> that might be.

<snip>

Would now be a good time to point out your snipping of the text that preceded the
link
above a couple of posts back? You have removed the introductory phrase "See the
final
paragraph in..." which, had you not snipped it for reasons unknown, would have served
as a reminder as to what Microsoft's claim might be, so you would not need to feign
ignorance of it when attempting to walk away.

For the avoidance of doubt, that final paragraph says: "However, Outlook Express is
offered as a downloadable product, and it does not include its own dictionary.
Outlook
Express does can [sic] use another programs [sic] dictionary, such as Microsoft Word,
to check the spelling of text. Without another program's dictionary to access,
Outlook
Express cannot use the spelling checker."

As I said, OE needs feeding a dictionary before it is usable. It does not work "out
of
the box".

And as *I* said, in a the quoted passage which still appears at the very
top of this post

quote:

the gibberish I occasionally post when *not* making use of the built in OE >> spellchecker, (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)*

:unquote

To repeat " (the source of the dictionary is an entirely different matter)" >>

I will take your statement that you "have no possible interest in verifying >>> Microsoft's
claim" as you saying you're conceding the point, without actually saying you're
conceding the point.

What claim ?

snip

Leading to the inevitable conclusion that your various protestations throughout this
thread amount to nought as you accept the spell checker in OE doesn't work without
first being fed a dictionary,

snip

But I never said that it didn't did I ?.

Right from the start I explained that the source of the dictionay was "an entirely
different matter". As quoted at the top of this very post.

After which, presumably not hjaving read what I wrote you then find A Microsoft website explaining that the OE Spellchecker doesn't work without a dictionary/

And so I can only ask you again, what "Claim" are you referring to ?



bb






--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)