Hello,

I dont have a clue what to do and any assistance would be greatly
appreciated. Here is what i want to do:

I presently have a worksheet that has for columns. Each column has a
look up table that it searches when i enter a specific number in column
A. So lets say i enter 2000 in column A.Column B will go to my first
look up table and get me a number. Columns C will go to my second
table, D will look at my third table, and E will look up my Fourth
table. This process is working just. The problem is this... I now
have more than 4 tables and only 4 columns to work with.

Is there a way that I can enter a Number on the top of any of these
columns and then the proper lookup table will be searched. For
instance if i enter #1 on the top of column B it will search my first
table, but if i enter #2 instead it will search my second table.

Any ideas?

Thank you all in advance.

JM


--
joeldsmt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joeldsmt's Profile: http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=11889
View this thread: http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=560923

One way via INDIRECT & named table_arrays

Name* the lookup table_arrays as say:
Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4, etc
*via Insert Name Define, or via the namebox

Then we could use these names as labels in B1:E1
and deploy something like this in B2:
=VLOOKUP($A2,INDIRECT(B$1),2,0)
to return from Table1 in col B

B2 could then simply be copied across and filled down to return
correspondingly from the names entered in C1:E1, viz from: Table2, Table3,
Table4 in cols C to E
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---
"joeldsmt" wrote:
Hello,

I dont have a clue what to do and any assistance would be greatly
appreciated. Here is what i want to do:

I presently have a worksheet that has for columns. Each column has a
look up table that it searches when i enter a specific number in column
A. So lets say i enter 2000 in column A.Column B will go to my first
look up table and get me a number. Columns C will go to my second
table, D will look at my third table, and E will look up my Fourth
table. This process is working just. The problem is this... I now
have more than 4 tables and only 4 columns to work with.

Is there a way that I can enter a Number on the top of any of these
columns and then the proper lookup table will be searched. For
instance if i enter #1 on the top of column B it will search my first
table, but if i enter #2 instead it will search my second table.

Any ideas?

Thank you all in advance.

JM


--
joeldsmt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joeldsmt's Profile: http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=11889
View this thread: http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=560923

A non-volatile alternative:

=VLOOKUP(A2,CHOOSE(B1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4),2,0)

Biff

"Max" wrote in message
...
One way via INDIRECT & named table_arrays

Name* the lookup table_arrays as say:
Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4, etc
*via Insert Name Define, or via the namebox

Then we could use these names as labels in B1:E1
and deploy something like this in B2:
=VLOOKUP($A2,INDIRECT(B$1),2,0)
to return from Table1 in col B

B2 could then simply be copied across and filled down to return
correspondingly from the names entered in C1:E1, viz from: Table2, Table3,
Table4 in cols C to E
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---
"joeldsmt" wrote:
Hello,

I dont have a clue what to do and any assistance would be greatly
appreciated. Here is what i want to do:

I presently have a worksheet that has for columns. Each column has a
look up table that it searches when i enter a specific number in column
A. So lets say i enter 2000 in column A.Column B will go to my first
look up table and get me a number. Columns C will go to my second
table, D will look at my third table, and E will look up my Fourth
table. This process is working just. The problem is this... I now
have more than 4 tables and only 4 columns to work with.

Is there a way that I can enter a Number on the top of any of these
columns and then the proper lookup table will be searched. For
instance if i enter #1 on the top of column B it will search my first
table, but if i enter #2 instead it will search my second table.

Any ideas?

Thank you all in advance.

JM


--
joeldsmt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joeldsmt's Profile:
http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=11889
View this thread:
http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=560923

Biff,

Although i dont understand either of your formulas, your answer seems a
bit easier.

Could you explain to me what each section is?

=VLOOKUP(A2,CHOOSE(B1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4),2,0)

I understand the first half but i get confused on the CHOOSE part. How
does it know what table i want to look from? What does the 2,0 part
do?

Thank you in advance.


--
joeldsmt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joeldsmt's Profile: http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=11889
View this thread: http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=560923

"joeldsmt" wrote in
message ...

Biff,

Although i dont understand either of your formulas, your answer seems a
bit easier.

Could you explain to me what each section is?

=VLOOKUP(A2,CHOOSE(B1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4),2,0)

I understand the first half but i get confused on the CHOOSE part. How
does it know what table i want to look from? What does the 2,0 part
do?

Thank you in advance.

Ok.....

Based on your post.......

Assume you have 4 separate lookup tables. You have given each table a
defined name: Tbl1, Tbl2, Tbl3 Tbl4.

In B1 you enter the number of the lookup table that you want to use, either
1 for Tbl1, 2 for Tbl2, 3 for Tbl3, or 4 for Tbl4.

The CHOOSE function takes that number and selects the appropriate table to
use for the Vlookup. You'll notice that in the formula the tables are listed
in sequence. Let's say you enter 2 in B1. CHOOSE will select the 2nd entry
in the sequence which happens to be Tbl2. If you enter 4 in B1 then CHOOSE
will select the 4th entry in the sequence which is Tbl4.

The 2,0..........

2 is the column number of the lookup table from which the result will be
taken. That's just an arbitrary number I used as an example.

0 means that you're wanting an exact match of the lookup value.

Biff

"joeldsmt" wrote:
Biff, .. your answer seems a bit easier.

Not really <g. Mine is actually shorter, and I've configured it in a way
which enables you to easily copy across and fill down. It's a good intro to
the use of INDIRECT, and how you can use it to read col headers (text) which
are directly synonymous with the 4 tables' names as created. So you know
what's going on, and you could probably experiment successfully with its use
in other situations (cross-apply elsewhere). Note that, like mine, Biff's
still requires the 4 tables to be named. Yes, INDIRECT is volatile, but it
has many flexible uses, and I don't think it's volatility should preclude its
use only as a last resort. Of course it's your choice to use either.
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Mine is actually shorter
was prompted by OP's statement ...
.. your answer seems a bit easier.
... and then the apparent contradiction sunk in as to why the seemingly
"easier" answer required clarification to understand how it worked ?

Biff's still requires the 4 tables to be named.
In the original expression .. and you didn't explain what should be in B1
and what Tbl1, Tbl2, .. mean until the OP asked <g
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Hi

As another alternative, you could take the Choose() function out of
Biff's formula and into a defined name
Assuming you have the 4 named ranges Tbl1 to Tbl4
Define a 5th name InsertNameDefineTbl0 Refers to
=CHOOSE($B$1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4)
Use B1 to define which table you want, 1,2,3 or 4

Then use
=VLOOKUP(A2,Tbl0,2,0)

That way the Choose function gets written once, as opposed to being
written across a whole range of cells.
(and I won't even say its shorter, Max<vbg)

--
Regards

Roger Govier


"Max" wrote in message
...
Mine is actually shorter
was prompted by OP's statement ...
.. your answer seems a bit easier.
.. and then the apparent contradiction sunk in as to why the seemingly
"easier" answer required clarification to understand how it worked ?

Biff's still requires the 4 tables to be named.
In the original expression .. and you didn't explain what should be in
B1
and what Tbl1, Tbl2, .. mean until the OP asked <g
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

(and I won't even say its shorter, Max<vbg)

LOL!

And, if you wanted a return from each table (that might mean you don't use
B1 as table variable)

=VLOOKUP($A2,CHOOSE(COLUMNS($A:A),Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,T bl4),2,0)

Copied across.

This is fun!

Biff

"Roger Govier" wrote in message
...
Hi

As another alternative, you could take the Choose() function out of Biff's
formula and into a defined name
Assuming you have the 4 named ranges Tbl1 to Tbl4
Define a 5th name InsertNameDefineTbl0 Refers to
=CHOOSE($B$1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4)
Use B1 to define which table you want, 1,2,3 or 4

Then use
=VLOOKUP(A2,Tbl0,2,0)

That way the Choose function gets written once, as opposed to being
written across a whole range of cells.
(and I won't even say its shorter, Max<vbg)

--
Regards

Roger Govier


"Max" wrote in message
...
Mine is actually shorter
was prompted by OP's statement ...
.. your answer seems a bit easier.
.. and then the apparent contradiction sunk in as to why the seemingly
"easier" answer required clarification to understand how it worked ?

Biff's still requires the 4 tables to be named.
In the original expression .. and you didn't explain what should be in B1
and what Tbl1, Tbl2, .. mean until the OP asked <g
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

This is fun!
Isn't it!!!

Very good idea Biff, but you could still put the CHOOSE part in defined
name of Tbl0
Define Tbl0 =CHOOSE(COLUMNS($A:A),Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4)

=VLOOKUP($A2,Tbl0,2,0)

Would make it a bit more readable when inserted inside an error trap

=IF(ISERROR(VLOOKUP($A2,Tbl0,2,0)),"",VLOOKUP($A2, Tbl0,2,0))

--
Regards

Roger Govier


"Biff" wrote in message
...
(and I won't even say its shorter, Max<vbg)

LOL!

And, if you wanted a return from each table (that might mean you don't
use B1 as table variable)

=VLOOKUP($A2,CHOOSE(COLUMNS($A:A),Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,T bl4),2,0)

Copied across.

This is fun!

Biff

"Roger Govier" wrote in message
...
Hi

As another alternative, you could take the Choose() function out of
Biff's formula and into a defined name
Assuming you have the 4 named ranges Tbl1 to Tbl4
Define a 5th name InsertNameDefineTbl0 Refers to
=CHOOSE($B$1,Tbl1,Tbl2,Tbl3,Tbl4)
Use B1 to define which table you want, 1,2,3 or 4

Then use
=VLOOKUP(A2,Tbl0,2,0)

That way the Choose function gets written once, as opposed to being
written across a whole range of cells.
(and I won't even say its shorter, Max<vbg)

--
Regards

Roger Govier


"Max" wrote in message
...
Mine is actually shorter
was prompted by OP's statement ...
.. your answer seems a bit easier.
.. and then the apparent contradiction sunk in as to why the
seemingly
"easier" answer required clarification to understand how it worked ?

Biff's still requires the 4 tables to be named.
In the original expression .. and you didn't explain what should be
in B1
and what Tbl1, Tbl2, .. mean until the OP asked <g
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

"Roger Govier" wrote:
This is fun!
Isn't it!!!

But of course !!! <g

However ... as-is, CHOOSE's index_num limits it's usage/the formula's
propagation to cover between 1-29 tables, while with INDIRECT it's just a
sweet fill across of the formula in B2 up to the last IV2 to reference a
possible 255 tables (assuming OP has this need <g). That's almost 9 times
more coverage afforded with the same "short" original formula ( ... imagine
how long the CHOOSE formula is going to look like with 29 tables slotted in
??). And unlike using CHOOSE here, which hardcodes the tables' order within
the formula, OP doesn't need to edit and refill the formulas all over should
there be a future change needed in the col referencing order of the max 255
tables. He just need to change the col labels accordingly / easily.

Long live INDIRECT !!! <bg
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Long live INDIRECT !!! <bg

Try using INDIRECT with dynamic tables!

It's CHOOSE to the rescue!

Biff

"Max" wrote in message
...
"Roger Govier" wrote:
This is fun!
Isn't it!!!

But of course !!! <g

However ... as-is, CHOOSE's index_num limits it's usage/the formula's
propagation to cover between 1-29 tables, while with INDIRECT it's just a
sweet fill across of the formula in B2 up to the last IV2 to reference a
possible 255 tables (assuming OP has this need <g). That's almost 9 times
more coverage afforded with the same "short" original formula ( ...
imagine
how long the CHOOSE formula is going to look like with 29 tables slotted
in
??). And unlike using CHOOSE here, which hardcodes the tables' order
within
the formula, OP doesn't need to edit and refill the formulas all over
should
there be a future change needed in the col referencing order of the max
255
tables. He just need to change the col labels accordingly / easily.

Long live INDIRECT !!! <bg
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Notice how "volatile" this thread has become ? That's the spirit <g
(It's pretty quiet elsewhere, especially wrt feedback from OPs to responders
... just rough-count how many posts where OPs respond to responders ..)

Anyway ... up, up, up with ALL volatile functions !! <bg
(just a clarion call not to shy away from using these, that is)
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

I need to learn me some VBA. I know one line of code:

Application.Volatile

Biff

"Max" wrote in message
...
Notice how "volatile" this thread has become ? That's the spirit <g
(It's pretty quiet elsewhere, especially wrt feedback from OPs to
responders
.. just rough-count how many posts where OPs respond to responders ..)

Anyway ... up, up, up with ALL volatile functions !! <bg
(just a clarion call not to shy away from using these, that is)
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that if you were responsible for
keeping a plant going which depended on using several 30 to 40 K row WBs,
which also have in excess of 150 columns.

Of course, they didn't start out that big, but after being exposed to the
problems (calc & re-calc & opening times) involved with *large* files, one
automatically becomes a miser where freely spending "resources" is
concerned.
Even using the "wrong" type of error checking (dbl and triple vlookups)
becomes very "expensive".

Volatiles just add to the nails in the coffin.<g

I'm *very* gun-shy when it comes to using them.
And, of course, I'm *not* talking about a 2 sheet, 100 row production
report.
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Max" wrote in message
...
Notice how "volatile" this thread has become ? That's the spirit <g
(It's pretty quiet elsewhere, especially wrt feedback from OPs to
responders
.. just rough-count how many posts where OPs respond to responders ..)

Anyway ... up, up, up with ALL volatile functions !! <bg
(just a clarion call not to shy away from using these, that is)
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

I know Max, and I did add a <g somewhere near the end ... didn't I?<bg

I must tell you and Biff, that this thread was a throw-back to the "old"
days of these groups, and gave me a pleasant, nostalgic feeling.

When I first "tripped" over these groups, back in '97, I was trying to learn
XL so that I could put together something to run a department with.

Let me tell you, that in almost every post from the "regulars", there was
this 'under-the-surface' *intent*, to be the *first* with an answer, or to
post the*shortest* formula.
And of course, the best was to find an error in someone else's formula *and*
come back with your own that was half the length.
All done with a good, mutual feeling of respect for each other.

You cannot get this "friendly confrontational" atmosphere from reading the
old posts on Google, because there, they're grouped into subjects.
You'd have to go down a group, post after post, thread after thread, to see
how one after the other, the group would reflect this friendly
one-ups-manship.

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?
Well ... maybe not really *that* bad!<bg (with due fond respect Harlan)<g

And believe me, this *did* present a very good "learning" experience.

There's been some posts the past few days on this subject of "is shorter
better?".

Shorter is always better, because, to present something shorter, you
*automatically* submit *another* avenue of thought to add to the first,
therefore introducing more knowledge to the entire group and the archives.

I'm rambling ... <g

--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------



"Max" wrote in message
...
"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?

OMG!

Biff

"RagDyeR" wrote in message
...
I know Max, and I did add a <g somewhere near the end ... didn't I?<bg

I must tell you and Biff, that this thread was a throw-back to the "old"
days of these groups, and gave me a pleasant, nostalgic feeling.

When I first "tripped" over these groups, back in '97, I was trying to
learn
XL so that I could put together something to run a department with.

Let me tell you, that in almost every post from the "regulars", there was
this 'under-the-surface' *intent*, to be the *first* with an answer, or to
post the*shortest* formula.
And of course, the best was to find an error in someone else's formula
*and*
come back with your own that was half the length.
All done with a good, mutual feeling of respect for each other.

You cannot get this "friendly confrontational" atmosphere from reading the
old posts on Google, because there, they're grouped into subjects.
You'd have to go down a group, post after post, thread after thread, to
see
how one after the other, the group would reflect this friendly
one-ups-manship.

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?
Well ... maybe not really *that* bad!<bg (with due fond respect
Harlan)<g

And believe me, this *did* present a very good "learning" experience.

There's been some posts the past few days on this subject of "is shorter
better?".

Shorter is always better, because, to present something shorter, you
*automatically* submit *another* avenue of thought to add to the first,
therefore introducing more knowledge to the entire group and the archives.

I'm rambling ... <g

--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------



"Max" wrote in message
...
"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

I don't know if it's age (MINE or his), but lately, I seem to sense a
mellowing of demeanor in his posts.<g

I'm talking about when he's *unprovoked*!

With threads such as Aaron's, he's as tough as ever.<bg
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biff" wrote in message
...
Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?

OMG!

Biff

"RagDyeR" wrote in message
...
I know Max, and I did add a <g somewhere near the end ... didn't I?<bg

I must tell you and Biff, that this thread was a throw-back to the "old"
days of these groups, and gave me a pleasant, nostalgic feeling.

When I first "tripped" over these groups, back in '97, I was trying to
learn
XL so that I could put together something to run a department with.

Let me tell you, that in almost every post from the "regulars", there was
this 'under-the-surface' *intent*, to be the *first* with an answer, or
to
post the*shortest* formula.
And of course, the best was to find an error in someone else's formula
*and*
come back with your own that was half the length.
All done with a good, mutual feeling of respect for each other.

You cannot get this "friendly confrontational" atmosphere from reading
the
old posts on Google, because there, they're grouped into subjects.
You'd have to go down a group, post after post, thread after thread, to
see
how one after the other, the group would reflect this friendly
one-ups-manship.

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?
Well ... maybe not really *that* bad!<bg (with due fond respect
Harlan)<g

And believe me, this *did* present a very good "learning" experience.

There's been some posts the past few days on this subject of "is shorter
better?".

Shorter is always better, because, to present something shorter, you
*automatically* submit *another* avenue of thought to add to the first,
therefore introducing more knowledge to the entire group and the
archives.

I'm rambling ... <g

--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------



"Max" wrote in message
...
"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

Please don't poke the bear!

Ragdyer wrote:

I don't know if it's age (MINE or his), but lately, I seem to sense a
mellowing of demeanor in his posts.<g

I'm talking about when he's *unprovoked*!

With threads such as Aaron's, he's as tough as ever.<bg
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biff" wrote in message
...
Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?

OMG!

Biff

"RagDyeR" wrote in message
...
I know Max, and I did add a <g somewhere near the end ... didn't I?<bg

I must tell you and Biff, that this thread was a throw-back to the "old"
days of these groups, and gave me a pleasant, nostalgic feeling.

When I first "tripped" over these groups, back in '97, I was trying to
learn
XL so that I could put together something to run a department with.

Let me tell you, that in almost every post from the "regulars", there was
this 'under-the-surface' *intent*, to be the *first* with an answer, or
to
post the*shortest* formula.
And of course, the best was to find an error in someone else's formula
*and*
come back with your own that was half the length.
All done with a good, mutual feeling of respect for each other.

You cannot get this "friendly confrontational" atmosphere from reading
the
old posts on Google, because there, they're grouped into subjects.
You'd have to go down a group, post after post, thread after thread, to
see
how one after the other, the group would reflect this friendly
one-ups-manship.

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?
Well ... maybe not really *that* bad!<bg (with due fond respect
Harlan)<g

And believe me, this *did* present a very good "learning" experience.

There's been some posts the past few days on this subject of "is shorter
better?".

Shorter is always better, because, to present something shorter, you
*automatically* submit *another* avenue of thought to add to the first,
therefore introducing more knowledge to the entire group and the
archives.

I'm rambling ... <g

--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------



"Max" wrote in message
...
"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---





--

Dave Peterson

Please don't poke the bear!

LOL!

Biff

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
Please don't poke the bear!

Ragdyer wrote:

I don't know if it's age (MINE or his), but lately, I seem to sense a
mellowing of demeanor in his posts.<g

I'm talking about when he's *unprovoked*!

With threads such as Aaron's, he's as tough as ever.<bg
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biff" wrote in message
...
Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?

OMG!

Biff

"RagDyeR" wrote in message
...
I know Max, and I did add a <g somewhere near the end ... didn't
I?<bg

I must tell you and Biff, that this thread was a throw-back to the
"old"
days of these groups, and gave me a pleasant, nostalgic feeling.

When I first "tripped" over these groups, back in '97, I was trying to
learn
XL so that I could put together something to run a department with.

Let me tell you, that in almost every post from the "regulars", there
was
this 'under-the-surface' *intent*, to be the *first* with an answer,
or
to
post the*shortest* formula.
And of course, the best was to find an error in someone else's formula
*and*
come back with your own that was half the length.
All done with a good, mutual feeling of respect for each other.

You cannot get this "friendly confrontational" atmosphere from reading
the
old posts on Google, because there, they're grouped into subjects.
You'd have to go down a group, post after post, thread after thread,
to
see
how one after the other, the group would reflect this friendly
one-ups-manship.

Can you picture an entire group of Harlans?
Well ... maybe not really *that* bad!<bg (with due fond respect
Harlan)<g

And believe me, this *did* present a very good "learning" experience.

There's been some posts the past few days on this subject of "is
shorter
better?".

Shorter is always better, because, to present something shorter, you
*automatically* submit *another* avenue of thought to add to the
first,
therefore introducing more knowledge to the entire group and the
archives.

I'm rambling ... <g

--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------



"Max" wrote in message
...
"Ragdyer" wrote:
Believe me Max ... you wouldn't be saying that ..

RD, don't ride me so hard on that <g
It's tongue-in-cheek, and I did throw in a qualifier line below ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---





--

Dave Peterson

RD, Thanks for the trip down memory lane ..

Back in 2001, I even remember benefiting directly from your response at:
http://tinyurl.com/q79sv
Thanks again for that one !

--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

"Max" wrote..
RD, Thanks for the trip down memory lane ..
Back in 2001, I even remember benefiting directly from your response at:
http://tinyurl.com/q79sv
Thanks again for that one !

when I update my dye formulas.

A clue to your moniker?

Should I start "bottom posting" ?

I'm gonna try it for a couple of days. So far I'm not enjoying it but maybe
it's just something to get used to.

Biff

"Biff" wrote:
.. Should I start "bottom posting" ?
So far I'm not enjoying it ..

Think I'm actually quite versatile on this <g

Top, bottom, in-line or any variation/mix in-between, it should be ok as
long as the response goes over clearly and looking right ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

I'd rather see top posting.

And if you look at most of the messages in the *excel* newsgroups, you'll see
that most people top post.

If you're going to bottom post (or intermingle), I would think you'd want to
snip more of the previous posts.

(As a lazy top poster, I hardly ever snip!)

Biff wrote:

"Max" wrote..
RD, Thanks for the trip down memory lane ..
Back in 2001, I even remember benefiting directly from your response at:
http://tinyurl.com/q79sv
Thanks again for that one !

when I update my dye formulas.

A clue to your moniker?

Should I start "bottom posting" ?

I'm gonna try it for a couple of days. So far I'm not enjoying it but maybe
it's just something to get used to.

Biff

--

Dave Peterson

Check out this link Max:

http://tinyurl.com/rgqez

NOW, Google is smart enough to hide the display of previous messages to save
screen display space.
BUT, they do include the option to:
"Show Quoted Text"

Go down the thread in this link, and click on that option in *each* post.

That will show you exactly what displayed in these groups at the time of
posting, and what anybody following the thread had to scroll through in
order to follow that thread.
You lose your train of thought going from post to post, just from looking
for the new message.

This is a perfect example of why 'Bottom' posting should be a MORTAL SIN,
And I did enter the thread just to bring up that point!

PLEASE don't go that route!<bg
--

Regards,

RD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

"Max" wrote in message
...
"Biff" wrote:
.. Should I start "bottom posting" ?
So far I'm not enjoying it ..

Think I'm actually quite versatile on this <g

Top, bottom, in-line or any variation/mix in-between, it should be ok as
long as the response goes over clearly and looking right ..
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---

"RagDyeR" wrote:
Check out this link Max:
http://tinyurl.com/rgqez

Thanks for the illustration !
(Looks like we've diverted into yet another subject: "bottom posting" <g)

I'd agree that there's the risk ...
.. You lose your train of thought going from post to post,
just from looking for the new message.

but I'd usually "bottom post" only for short orig. posts
where the response/message is immediately apparent just below
(A bit of variety for the eyes is good, no? <g)
--
Max
Singapore
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
xdemechanik
---