NASB in Paragraph Format

It didn't come through right.  What I was trying to show is that the text alignment is separate from the verse number.  Like in list format:

1. Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.”
2. Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Thanks for the replies...

Disclaimer: I really do have a life [:D] and do not hold the issue of the formatted appearance of the NASB95 in my Bible software as a determining factor for the quality of my life or eternal existence (smile again).

Having said that...the visual filter work-around does not provide the same appearance as the original (the pericopes and paragraphs are shoved together, etc.), unless that has been changed in the last day or two.

In the end I would guess my preference has to do with some mild level of eidetic reference for me.  This after 20 years of usage and notes...highlighting...bold text.  You know, sort of like the visual/mental references for those of us who are old enough to have highlighted/notated paper Bibles until they were worn out.

AND...I have had no thought whatsoever that this was some "money grab" ruse on the part of FL.  
Still, I would be glad to pay for the resource in the old format if it were made available.

Thanks guys...

I use NASB95 for many reasons, one of which is the line-per-verse presentation. And while some may have this attitude...

Still, I would be glad to pay for the resource in the old format if it were made available.

...I am not so accommodating. I'm not going to pay for this resource again. You see, I actually PAID $$ for NASB95 back in the 90s, before it was added to the base packages. It wasn't cheap, either. I'm NOT going to pay for it again. Not only that, but I fully expect FL to restore my NASB95 back to its original condition very soon, and they can then go back to figuring out how to offer a paragraph format for those who want that. I have no interest in such a thing. I personally feel ROBBED and at this point I'm just biding a short window of time before I start gathering names of similarly aggrieved parties.

RESTORE IT EXACTLY AS BEFORE ASAP.

I can't imagine that they would produce a separate resource. That's totally unnecessary and would bring on even more problems.

I agree that FL made a few mistakes: a) releasing without better testing, and b) by not ensuring that line-by-line was the default.

And I know it's the accumulation of similar goofs over the years that makes it worse.

But, Mistake made, it's now more helpful to focus on the FIX. They are continuing to make changes and updates to correct it. That tells us they do not intend to release a separate resource. Nor should they! They are perfectly capable of making this work as a single resource. With all the same formatting and functionality. The best way to move this forward is to take Mark's example and post bug reports for every difference that needs to be fixed.

FL leadership refusing to answer your question is the equivalent of the somebody making a rude gesture.

Don't be daft. Failing to answer one forum post directly (out of a ton) while actively working on addressing the issue raised in broad terms and regularly communicating their progress/intent is hardly the same as a rude gesture. It just isn't.

Loads of people campaigned for Faithlife to update the resource to paragraph formatting, and they did so. They realised that people weren't happy with the visual filter to display verses on new lines, so they've released multiple updates in a short span of time to improve the behaviour and confirmed that they're still working on it now.

Don't be daft.

James you make a lot of valuable contributions to these forums with your questions about FL's products and your sharing of your experiences and learnings about the products.  This is not one of your finest moments.

You have allowed yourself to fall into the trap of attacking a fellow customer because you don't share their experience of the company or view on this particular issue. These forums are for all customers to provide feedback, whether it be positive or negative, in regards to their experiences with the company and it's products.

A customer focused company wants to know what both engages and disengages their customers and will respond to both of these scenarios. Customers who are disengaged by the actions of FL on this issue feel their concerns and in particular a direct question on the topic are not being answered adequately.

You do not have a right to tell disengaged customers their feedback is not welcome because you consider it 'daft'.  And sadly it has not been you alone.  There have been others from the paragraph format camp who think the appropriate way to deal with this divide is to attack the person instead of simply sticking to sharing their views and experiences. On the other hand I can't recall one person who prefers the original format launch an attack against the person of someone of the opposing view. We have simply stuck to highlighting the fact we are not happy with the way FL has handle this and are not happy they are not answering direct questions that have been raised.

They realised that people weren't happy with the visual filter to display verses on new lines, so they've released multiple updates in a short span of time to improve the behaviour and confirmed that they're still working on it now.

If you were being balanced and fair James you would recognise like Randy that FL has made a few mistakes in the handling of this issue and its FL's lack of openness in admitting the same re-enforces my view they are being rude towards a segment of their customers.

I agree that FL made a few mistakes: a) releasing without better testing, and b) by not ensuring that line-by-line was the default.

And I know it's the accumulation of similar goofs over the years that makes it worse.

FL over the years have not learnt from their 'similar goofs'.  They get an idea in their head, don't fully think through all the issues and impacts upon customers and run with the idea prematurely and then afterwards expect customers to sit back and accept the mess they create while they fix it up after the action has been thrust upon customers. 

James I have read all of the posts on this topic, I am well aware of this fact and if you have read everything you would see that I have at one point made acknowledgement of their efforts.  My concern is not with efforts of those who are trying to improve the visual filter. I recognise this is probably taking them away from other things they might have been otherwise focusing on improving and they are doing their best in a short time frame to get updates out. The problem you are missing because you have decided others are not allowed to share a view point different to yours is that the leadership of FL are not answering directly how they are going to give back to those who had taken away from them something they paid for and never asked to be changed because it was not broken. Whether you agree or not the behavior of the leadership of FL towards customers seeking answers to these questions is rude.

I would not like it if they revert back to line format- I find no shortcomings with how I use the paragraph format.

I would not like it if they revert back to line format-

Tough, but they don't have much choice. They face legal action if they don't return what they've stolen.

Taking from Peter to pay Paul is never a good option.

Say whatever you want. There's ONE Bible that has line-per-verse formatting, and rather than be content with ALL BUT ONE, folks like you want ALL. This whole scenario reminds me of 2 Sam. 12:1-5. In this dispute, there's a safe side to be on, and there's a side that reaps whirlwind. If I wasn't using L3 right now, I would be dead in the water. My 20 years investment in Logos--and I'm talking about my time investment in terms of making thousands of notes rather than the $35K+ financial hook--would be essentially obliterated. MY LIFE IS IN THOSE NOTES and they are enmeshed in my copy of NASB95. I'm not going to let that disappear without a fight. So, yeah, if it's necessary, I'll gather all of those who feel the same way and will do whatever it takes to stay alive--because that's what this is for me.

Hmmm ... 1 Cor 6:1-7?  [*-)]

.

You have allowed yourself to fall into the trap of attacking a fellow customer because you don't share their experience of the company or view on this particular issue.

I haven’t attacked anyone. I told someone not to be daft.  

James if you want to continue to tell yourself you have a right to call people daft because they have a different view to you on an issue and then I will pray for you. 

James you are not part of the leadership of FL, you do not represent them in any way yet to presume your answers should be satisfactory for those who have asked for the leadership of FL to speak. I am sorry but it does not work that way, you are just a customer who seems to think speaking rudely to other customers is ok and should result in them going away. James all you are doing is fanning them flames when you continue to directly attack other people's viewpoints instead of sticking to expressing your own views.

So no matter how much you want to deny it and try and cloud thes issue with your personal judgements on what other people have said,  or continue to not read everything I have said and try and tell me again what I have already acknowledged, you have done nothing to convince me that FL has answered all questions and their decision to continue to not answer all of those questions is rude. 

DOC, I'm never pretended to speak for Faithlife - I'm making a similar point to yours on appropriate language - accusing Faithlife of being abusive. I don't know if "daft" means something different in the states (not actually sure if that's where you're from, but judging by your replies I suspect something's been lost in translation), but in the UK it's a mild term to describe someone being "a bit silly" - which that particular accusation obviously is. I've never said people should be happy with my words on the matter - I'm really not pushing any view on what people should be happy with. All I'm doing is saying that a company actively working to resolve the concerns of a few users (albeit not in the way or the speed you would like) is not abusive. That's all I'm saying. If you read the way that Faithlife have responded as abuse, you have misread the situation by any reasonable measure.

You can complain, ask for a fix, say the issue hasn't been resolved, ask for updates, ask for better responses and say they've let you down - that's all fine. But they have not abused anyone here. I won't call it daft, if the word upsets you, but it's terribly silly.

You didn’t just say it was rude in a generic way, you said it was equivalent to a rude gesture.

Not answering the phone might be rude, but it’s passive. Rude gestures are active - they’re deliberate acts designed to cause offence, thus abusive. Hence it’s not a suitable comparison for what’s happening with Faithlife, and it’s silly to use that kind of language.

i’m really not making a contentious point here. Rude gestures are abusive. Abuse hasn’t happened. Failures can be discussed using less loaded language.

Don’t keep turning that obvious point into an attack on you or anyone else. Corrections are not attacks. It’s part of discipleship. Anyway, I think it‘s wise if I leave the convo.

You didn’t just say it was rude in a generic way, you said it was equivalent to a rude gesture.

Not answering the phone might be rude, but it’s passive. Rude gestures are active - they’re deliberate acts designed to cause offence, thus abusive. Hence it’s not a suitable comparison for what’s happening with Faithlife, and it’s silly to use that kind of language.

i’m really not making a contentious point here. Rude gestures are abusive. Abuse hasn’t happened. Failures can be discussed using less loaded language.

Don’t keep turning that obvious point into an attack on you or anyone else.

James 

1) you call me daft and silly because I have a different view to you and are unwilling to accept that your choice of words towards me was inappropriate

2) you make false accusations claiming I said  FL was abusive when I have never done so 

3) you don't know me at all and yet after doing the above you presume you can speak into my life and correct me for something I haven't done

4) you try to justify all of this to yourself so you do not have to admit your wrong dong by calling it 'discipleship'

James how can you think after doing 1) & 2) above that you have a relationship of trust that allows you to speak into my life? Seriously how can you think that and think think that I am going to accept you speaking a lie about what I said as a correction? You just don't get it do you?

And all of this simply because you dont agree with myself or others who prefer the NASB95 in the format it was originally.

You are the one who is trying to turn attention away from what those who prefer the original one verse per line format. 

 Anyway, I think it‘s wise if I leave the convo.

It is a pity you did not show such wisdom before using derogatory terms about me, and then before making false accusations, and then before trying to take a false moral high ground claiming you have earnt a position of trust in my life and can presume to correct me all in order to continue to avoid admitting your initial wrong doing.