Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Jim, MORE threatening language? Witness a large mind at work. So, Jim, you find being bored more objectionable than backchannel bullying. Got it. This actually isn't about you. It isn't even about me. Does this list have a problem? I haven't the time right now to finish writing what I have

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Jim, Discussing isn't resolving. You, and a number of others, clearly do not grasp the issue at all. Or maybe you're just indifferent to abuse. Well, I'm not. When I'm finished with this, I'll be quiet, and not before. As I said, I've been occupied with higher priorities all week. That shoul

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

On Fri, 09 May 2014 11:05:01 -0600 Tom Cloyd wrote: > Greetings. > > I disagree, Tom, in the strongest possible terms. > > I've been extremely busy this week, doing what I do - taking care > of victims of interpersonal abuse of all sorts. > > This Urmas matter is far from resolved, as far as I

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Greetings. I disagree, Tom, in the strongest possible terms. I've been extremely busy this week, doing what I do - taking care of victims of interpersonal abuse of all sorts. This Urmas matter is far from resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Every work group, and that's what this is - we're he

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Hi :) Nope. You missed nothing by filtering Urmas, don't worry. Regards from Tom :) On 9 May 2014 05:42, NoOp wrote: > On 05/08/2014 07:28 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu wrote: > > @NoOp > > > > Full threads in context are available on the Nabble service: > > > > http://nabble.do

RE: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

@NoOp Full threads in context are available on the Nabble service: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Users-f1639498.html From: NoOp Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 9:15 PM To: users@global.libreoffice.org Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash -

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

+1 Virgil There is no worse contempt that not to do appreciation. Miguel Ángel -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/crash-crash-crash-crash-tp4106932p4107580.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubs

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Tom - On 05/04/2014 05:34 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi Tom :) Good answers to Urmas there. Considerate, understanding and light-hearted. Nicely done! :) I was allowing for the possibility that he wasn't serious. Turns out not to be true. I've almost never found 'professional' proprietary stuff

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Hi Tom :) Good answers to Urmas there. Considerate, understanding and light-hearted. Nicely done! :) I've almost never found 'professional' proprietary stuff to be any better than OpenSource. Indeed a new study by an independant security company found that OpenSource had slightly less errors pe

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Hi :) Various lists have had discussions about that sort of thing in general and about the specific case. It's a tricky one to handle but i figure the best on-list way is to just not get riled by his on-list replies. Regards from Tom :) On 4 May 2014 13:27, Tom Cloyd wrote: > Tom - > > > On 0

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Tom, I have to strongly disagree. As I've pointed out, bullies flourish when they can act unseen. This is personality disordered behavior (if I may put on my professional hat for a moment). It's due to lack of appropriate internal controls to structure behavior. The solution that works is not

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

On Sun, 4 May 2014 09:40:36 -0400 Jim Seymour wrote: > On Sat, 03 May 2014 13:12:47 -0600 > Tom Cloyd wrote: > > > Re: status of forum participant "Urmas" - > > > > I've examined the past 3 months' posts by this individual - > > approximately 25% of them are slams of LO software or insults to

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

Jim Seymour wrote: > Just put him in a set-and-forget filter on your email client and be > done with it. Hopefully nobody on the mailing list will have the bad > sense to copy his nonsense to the mailing list, and Urmas will be > gone from your life. > That is indeed sensible advise. And now let

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

If a given poster is routinely offensive, I find it very effective to ignore said poster. If nobody responds to an offensive post, then the poster loses an audience. Virgil On 05/04/2014 01:24 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) +1 i agree that banning or booting is not as easy as it might seem. I

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Hi :) I don't see how this mailing-list could stop anyone from writing private emails to people who have written in to this mailing list. We have to work with what we have got. I agree it might be a good idea to encourage people to forwards Urmas' off-list remarks to somewhere but i'm not sure th

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

Hi :) +1 i agree that banning or booting is not as easy as it might seem. I think that it's more difficult for a bully to be effective when 1. the mailing list is supportive of individuals coming here and 2. when the mailing list is clearly not of the same opinion as the bully What doesn't help

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

On Sat, 03 May 2014 13:12:47 -0600 Tom Cloyd wrote: > Re: status of forum participant "Urmas" - > > I've examined the past 3 months' posts by this individual - > approximately 25% of them are slams of LO software or insults to > some individual participating in this forum. Yeah, he's pretty mu

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

I rest my case. Again: if anyone receives privately anything remotely like this, I suggest you share it with the list. This problem should concern us all, I think. Tom C. On 05/03/2014 07:25 PM, Urmas wrote: You piece of fucking idiot, who gave you the permission to publish my messages to

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

No I didn't. It went fine. I've been using it all day. Some problems have arisen, but I'm working through them and trying to find the pattern so I can report them usefully. t. On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:08 PM, NoOp > wrote: On 05/02/2014 07:19 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Thanks. Please remember to reply to the list so that others can benefit from your response. On 05/03/2014 04:14 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote: > No I didn't. It went fine. I've been using it all day. Some problems have > arisen, but I'm working through them and trying to find the pattern so I > can report

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

Sigrid, I thank you for your attention to this matter. Since his behavior appears to be to send aggressively worded, intimidating messages to forum members which only they see, I STRONGLY URGE anyone receiving such messages to report them publicly to the forum. That way, the privacy which all

Re: Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

Hi Tom, Urmas was put to forced moderation only recently. We are under strict orders to let only those posts through, that do not insult anyone on the list. Even though we don't let everything through to the list from him, he still can send out emails directly to the people in question. I don't t

Request for review: (Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!)

Re: status of forum participant "Urmas" - I've examined the past 3 months' posts by this individual - approximately 25% of them are slams of LO software or insults to some individual participating in this forum. Why is this tolerated? Do we not have elementary behavioral guidelines here? Sho

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Stuart, Using Version: 4.3.0.0.alpha1 Build ID: 46cfcd5a05aa1d13fecd73f5a25b64b8d8dd6781 on Kubuntu 4.04. In about 20 hours of fairly intense use I've had exactly one "vector::_M_range_check", and I was unable to replicate it. I'll keep watching. This is the most solid, stable version I've

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Urmas - I am "supposed" to - WHAT? You in da wrong place man. You one lost dude. I cannot recall the last time I did what I was "supposed" to do. That's simply alien thought. I do what I want to do. Period, which is why I'm here. I will mercifully assume you are exercising your capacity for d

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Error correction: I referred to Apache below. Silly me. End of the week fatigue showing up. I meant Adobe. t. On 05/02/2014 08:34 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote: Urmas - I am "supposed" to - WHAT? You in da wrong place man. You one lost dude. I cannot recall the last time I did what I was "supposed" t

RE: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

ork flows. Post back with your Bugzilla issue ID once you get it filed. Stuart > -Original Message- > From: Tom Cloyd [mailto:tomcloydm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:20 AM > To: V Stuart Foote; LibreOffice User's Help Forum > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-u

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Stuart, I'd love to. I just explored around with the link you gave. I run Kubuntu Linux, and the link was to windows releases, but it wasn't hard to find a deb version. I shouldn't have been put off by that /win/ link! I'll load that up and see what I can do. It could hardly be much worse tha

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Tom, Thanks for your thoughts, as always. I'm copying individual sheets into new blank spreadsheets, not .csv files, which would accomplish nothing. And, yes, they ARE doing "tons of calculations". That appears to be the problem - maybe. Alternatively, it appears that moving things around ge

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Stuart, Update and status report - good news! - 1. I've installed Version: 4.3.0.0.alpha1 Build ID: 46cfcd5a05aa1d13fecd73f5a25b64b8d8dd6781. It's at least as solid as ver. 4.1.6.2 was for me. I'm still having "vector::_M_range_check" crashes - but only in one particular situation. As long

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Hi :) Errr, the numbers beyond the 3rd digit don't mean much to most of us here. We do have a few devs here who might notice but it's probably beyond most of us. Splitting off individual worksheets sounds like a great idea. Hopefully none of the sheets do calculations based on figures calculated

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: crash - crash - crash - crash. !@#$#@!

Le 02/05/2014 05:51, V Stuart Foote a écrit : > Tom, > > Believe you REALLY should get off of the 4.2.x branch and move onto the 4.3 > now in alpha. > Devs have really put a lot of effort into exactly these issues for the 4.3 > release. > > First 4.3 alpha pre-release is > here: http://dev-buil