[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux



Let's change the subject line so we know whether to read it or delete it. This is getting to be a very busy, and I know important, list but dozens and dozens come through with the same subject line and pretty soon the subject line has nothing to do with the actual subject.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.


Bud Schwab
At 10:19 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:

Dave, your are correct, Enforced monogamy is an obvious flaw in the legal system of the western world.

Guido

Guido Dante Corona
IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
Research Division,
Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able



talmage@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

12/29/2004 11:54 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss

To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux




You're just saying that because Kellie said you can be charming. I'm not sure but I think there may be a law or something that says it's naughty to marry more than one person.

Dave

At 11:47 PM 12/28/2004, you wrote:

>Now about cleaning and cookery,  I would never complain. . . . marriage
>taught me that, at least. . .
>but Bookshare volunteers I haven't married. . . yet, that is. . .
>besides,  I love Pratik very much,  but only like a brother!  As for all
>the ladies. . . well, you know,   I just can't marry everyone of you. . .
>just not practical.
>
>
>
>Guido
>
>Guido Dante Corona
>IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
>Research Division,
>Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
>Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able
>
>
>
>"siss52" <siss52@xxxxxxx>
>Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>12/28/2004 10:10 PM
>Please respond to
>bksvol-discuss
>
>To
><bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>cc
>Subject
>[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux
>
>
>
>
>
>Oh thou high annd mighty one,
>
>This is sent in a spirit of fun just to lighten things up a bit.  I know you
>are married because you have told us.  Are you this much of a perfectionist
>about your wife's housework and cooking?  <<<<lol>>
>
>Happy New Year!
>
>Sue S.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Guido Corona" <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:28 PM
>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux
>
>
>mary,  quite frankly, I could not care less about the submitter rescanning
>the bad copy or preferring to sulk themselves onto eternity.
>This is only a matter of optimal usage of staff and volunteer time,  as I
>explained in my note to Cindy.
>If anyone finds a hopeless submission of mine,  I trust they will have the
>fortitude to nuke it with the same equanimity that I will experience
>receiving the rejection note.  When I was a programmer I was a firm
>believer in egoless programming:  If I found a bug in anyone's code,  I
>expected it to be fixed.  If there were too many bugs,  I expected a
>rewrite.  And yes,  I demanded the same treatment towards my code,  except
>that,  I usually found my own bugs before anyone else did, and fixed them
>in time.
>
>Guido
>
>
>
>Guido Dante Corona
>IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
>Research Division,
>Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
>Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able
>
>
>
>
>"Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>12/28/2004 08:17 PM
>Please respond to
>bksvol-discuss
>
>
>To
>"bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>cc
>
>Subject
>[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Just some things to ponder before you take the axe to all books with no
>page breaks, regardless of the quality of their text. A lot of people
>expressed the idea that they didn't much care about page breaks, that they
>
>could navigate just fine without them, especially if the book in question
>was your basic novel, very unlikely to be used as a reference book by
>anyone.
>There is an assumption that all the books that are rejected are going to
>be rescanned. For those of you who like to toss off figures about how
>quickly you can scan and prevalidate a book, and who are thus ready to
>help reduce the backlog by rejecting the hapless books with no page breaks
>in them, does that then mean that you're also going to scan replacement
>copies? Or is the assumption that the original submitter will see the
>error of his or her ways and rescan and submit those titles including page
>breaks this time? I find that to be a very dubious assumption.
>Finally, since Marissa said there would be something forthcoming from
>BookShare hq on this topic probably by the end of the week, I think it
>would be better to wait and see what they have to say before a wholesale
>search and destroy operation is begun.
>Remember, the last word we had from Marissa regarding this topic, at
>least as I recalll, was that page breaks alone were not cause for
>rejection; and I believe she also said that one of the members on this
>list who had
>a lot of older scans that may be missing those page breaks should still
>submit them.   So if its ok for them to be submitted, then it would seem
>to be not ok to reject based on an absence of page breaks alone.
>Mary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Bud Schwab
W 6 Z Y P
Malibu, California

Other related posts: