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 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.
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 > > > > > > > > >