Testing: disregard

Hey, I wonder if this thread will get hijacked... [:P]

Rosie Perera said:

Darn, I forgot to delete it before it was too late.

But we can still use this thread to pad out post counts, right?

It looks like Michael and Kenneth are having a race.  Michael has a very short lead (about 1%).

Fernando A Gonzalez said:

hat I think is disturbing is that the topic of the post clearly states that it should be disregarded, and yet it has about 90 views and even worse it has about 10 replies!  I just can't understand how people will continue such a meaningless discussion!  ...ups   PS.  Then again, Rosie started it so it must not be meaningless...

... but did you do everything your mother told you to do? [:D]

Floyd Johnson said:

... but did you do everything your mother told you to do?

You're right...  I can remember many...  but it also had a warning that it was a test, and therefore not an "official" discussion.  I know we are so incredibly busy that no one should have time to follow this kind of ....   ...ups (again) [:$]

Ah Floyd I was trying not to make a big deal about it [:P].

Rosie Perera said:

All of you have been participating in one grand experiment.

 Ah ha, missed this one before my last reply...it's like the rat maze I plan to build for my wife and kids little rodents...Need to create something to interest them. That's it as Lucy (of Peanuts fame) would say...the name is what attracts us...like moths to a light. Why bug zappers are so effective....Hmmmm Rosie are you saying we are a nusiance? [H]

Floyd you may be on to something.  I think Rosie might qualify as the mother of all MVP's.  LOL

Jack Caviness said:

I fully intended to stay away from this thread, but something drew me to read the entries. Then, Thomas posted this, and I was lost.

Just couldn't avoid temptation, could you.  Must be a spiritual lesson in there someplace.

Rosie Perera said:

Junk

I just thought I'd let you know that I'm disregarding this post.  One man's junk is another man's treasure.  [6]

I finally got it (I think).  It's right on the title...  Rosie was "testing" if we could "disregard" her, and we can't.

Did I get it right? or are there more mysteries to this post? (I almost type miseries instead of mysteries..., may be there's more to this post....)[:S]

Rosie Perera said:

And I can be a goofball too, when people entice me to it. Have we had enough fun yet? Let's get back to work...

Are you sure you aren't really a female impersonator?  That sounds like "The woman made me do it."

Rosie,

Just wanted to let you know that your post creates a rather serious logical conundrum. On the one hand, if I pay any attention to your post then I am disobeying the instructions in the subject. On the other hand, if I disregard the post then I am obeying the instructions in the subject, but in doing so I fail to disregard the post.

So I find one law at work in my desire, and another law at work in your subject. Who is sufficient for these things? Thanks be to the fact that the internet is ultimately meaningless, meaningless, says the teacher.

Chris Roberts said:

So I find one law at work in my desire, and another law at work in your subject. Who is sufficient for these things? Thanks be to the fact that the internet is ultimately meaningless, meaningless, says the teacher.

Thoughts of Romans coming on.    *Had to get one post count on*

JimT said:

Wow - from my position, this feature is maybe one of the most important aspectsof the newest Beta.

Does anyone know for sure, if the automatic lookup makes it work better than using a Visual Filter, or maybe by printing it first to an XPS document, and using a side-by-side compair, using what Rosie wrote at the top?

Maaybe it just needs more time to better understand what it means ...

Jim - are you continuing the joke or did you post in the wrong thread? [:)]

Rosie,

Your graphic covers it rather well.

I wrote something rather silly, to see what would happen next, given that no-one would be reading it in light of your first "disregard" warning.

[:)]

Rosie Perera said:

nd of course the "Nuggets of Wisdom" highlighting style. But I think I'm going to keep that latter. It might come in handy sometime in actually highlighting in Logos. Though it is awfully loud!

Looks like something Philip would create [:)]

... or both!

Jack Caviness said:

Who can disregard one of her pearls of wisdom?

Certainly not I.   Not I !!!!

Rosie Perera said:

Chris Roberts said:

You have too much time on your hands.

True, I do. But usually I spend it doing things like writing up a thorough sentence structure analysis of Romans 6:4 for Tes. I wouldn't be wasting it on such silliness as the aforementioned screenshot if you all had disregarded the initial post. Obviously you have too much time on your hands, too.

But I will never cease to appriciate the  sleepless hardworking of Rosie,since I am among those who know,what it means for me to have help in a confussing situations.I really coundn't wait to resist  any word against her.