I would sugguest ending this thread and if you still want to bicker take it to the politics list...
J.M.H.O...
-----Original Message-----
>From: SOTL <sotl155360@bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Sep 29, 2007 6:10 PM
>To: slug@nks.net
>Subject: Re: [SLUG] IBM
>
>Date: Wednesday 26 September 2007 20:57
>From: "Ken Elliott" <kelliott11@cfl.rr.com>
>To: slug@nks.net
>
> SOTL wrote:
>>> LT is an abbreviation for light as in not heavy.
>
>> Nope. LT does not stand for anything. LT was meant to be a "limited"
>> version, and was never referred to as light by insiders. I know several of
>> the Autodesk founders and programmers. I'm also an AutoCAD Certified
>> Expert. I assure you my information is quite accurate.
>
>Why do you not try looking LP up?
>
>http://www.abbreviations.com/LT
>
>I believe it is line 3/
>
>
>>> The AutoCAD Light drawings we get are in DWG format.
>>> The AutoCAD drawings we get are in DFX.
>
>No such "DFX" file format exists.
>
>Right it is DXF
>
>Both AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT create DWG and DXF files.
>
>Wrong
>
>LT only does DXF. That is one of the features they add when you give them more
>money.
>
>But what I do not understand is what this nit picking on the lowest level of
>the operational plane has to do with the central theme of the posts?
>
>Is your comprehension really so low that you do not see the strategic level of
>the posts and that all you are capable of comprehending is the lowest common
>denominator of the operation level?
>
>If you had bothered to read the original post it was by another who central
>theme is that Linux is desktop ready without application programs that force
>users to use XP.
>
>Do you not grasp that 90% of the world disagrees with you because they do not
>find the applications they need in Linux and that is why they use XP?
>
>Or is it that you fail to believe that the examples are applicable simple
>because they do not equal your requirements for correct detail?
>
>The one thing that is for sure is that this nit picking is not going to make
>Linux desk top ready today or in the next 5 years.
>
>
>But what I really suspect is that this proves another central part of the
>thesis in that shrills do not bother to read the original posting so have no
>idea of the subject being discussed, only reading one set of comments in one
>posting and then immediately twisting the topic due to their completely
>missunderstanding of the subject matter. Examples then become something to be
>picked apart on the lowest plane because of a total lack of comprehension to
>the subject being discussed. As I told you before GO BACK AND REREAD THE 3
>POSTINGS
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
>Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
>posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
>official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:25:53 EDT