On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 13:02, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > John wrote: >> Kwan Lowe wrote: >>> I read and re-read your original message and it's missing lots of >>> details. >>> >> its missing a lot of vowels, too. darn hard to read when nearly every >> word is misspelled. > > Yeah, and then there was the lack of response, like what o/s he's running > the vbox *in*.... I've given up on him - he's the one who gets snotty, > when he comes here and asks us to help when he's not paying us anything, > and doesn't give much indication that he's tried anything, like RTFM. > > mark Some people need to have a macro written for them so that they can type phonetically and it will expand what they typed into a human-readable language. First assumption one could make is that they are lazy. Second assumption is that they never learned how to type. Third assumption is that a person who does this has only learned the absolute minimum of English to survive and refuses to learn anything beyond that. (This is an English language list). Fourth assumption is that the younger generation, which texts and twitters, is too impatient to communicate in English (that has vowels) and/or to spell correctly and/or to use minimally acceptable grammar. Beyond this, of course, a succinct (not too brief, but not too verbose, and accurate) description of the system and the problem encountered and what research had already been done, would be nice for the volunteers to have to use to assist. Of course, all we have at this point is some text that can lead to all kinds of assumptions, applicable or not, because we don't have enough information and the information that we do have leads us to think negatively of the person who initiated the email thread. See how easy it is to give readers the wrong impression about yourself on the basis of what you write and how you write it? Oh, well, I've ranted again... Ken Wolcott