|
Posted by PSJ on August 12, 2006, 1:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> Answer the question that was asked.
>
> db
>
The answer to the ? --NO I did not save the downloaded file, I believe the
answer that this is a bug is indicated by the facts that: 1) it downloaded
perfectly w/no extraneous additions to the acc't dated 1998, w/2006p 2) in a
later post I added that I was NOT given the option to accept or delete the 2
incorrect additions they were arbitrarily added & 3) the online holdings w/o
the 2 erroneous cash additions agree w/the acc't balance.
The original conversion did not include these cash entries & for some
peculiar reason the transactions were named "Remove" which should NOT have
left a cash balance in the acc't.
I have been an early upgrader for years & only regretted it once when I went
from v5 to v6 (in the 90's); the bug in v6 caused duplicate investment
transactions (_div, etc) & was not fixed until the next year's software.
With this problem, the printer problem mentioned in another post & a
renaming problem I think this may be the 2nd time I'll regret the "upgrade."
--
PSJ
|
|
Posted by danbrown on August 12, 2006, 4:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options
So, explain why something similar isn't happening to (many) others,
which would be the case if it was truly a "bug", as you maliciously
allege.
Your "evidence" simply isn't persuasive.
db
|
|
Posted by PSJ on August 12, 2006, 7:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
> So, explain why something similar isn't happening to (many) others,
> which would be the case if it was truly a "bug", as you maliciously
> allege.
>
> Your "evidence" simply isn't persuasive.
>
> db
>
malicious -- gosh that's the first time I have been accused of being
malicious -- I thought software bugs & hackers were malicious. I love name
callers!
--
PSJ
|
|
Posted by danbrown on August 12, 2006, 8:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
PSJ wrote:
> >
> > So, explain why something similar isn't happening to (many) others,
> > which would be the case if it was truly a "bug", as you maliciously
> > allege.
> >
> > Your "evidence" simply isn't persuasive.
> >
> > db
> >
>
> malicious -- gosh that's the first time I have been accused of being
> malicious -- I thought software bugs & hackers were malicious. I love name
> callers!
> --
> PSJ
And once, AGAIN, you don't address the point raised ... which leaves
the distinct impression that you just want to cast aspersions at Q and
Intuit, instead of addressing any real problem ... thus the "malicious"
comment, which I reiterate.
db
|
|
Posted by John Pollard on August 12, 2006, 9:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options >>
>> So, explain why something similar isn't happening to (many)
>> others,
>> which would be the case if it was truly a "bug", as you
>> maliciously
>> allege.
>>
>> Your "evidence" simply isn't persuasive.
>>
>> db
>>
>
> malicious -- gosh that's the first time I have been accused of
> being malicious -- I thought software bugs & hackers were
> malicious. I love name callers!
You have expended way too much effort trying to proclaim that
you have found a bug ... and very little effort trying to solve
a problem.
I don't know whether that is malicious, but it is definitely
misguided.
If you insist on your predisposition that you must have
discovered a bug, you are undeserving of assistance.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Paycheque bugs? | May 21, 2007, 12:45 am |
| Summary of Quicken Bugs | February 9, 2007, 7:33 pm |
| Quicken 2008: Bugs Not Fixed from Previous Versions | September 1, 2007, 1:18 pm |
| 2007/10/15 Peachtree Premium Accounting 2007, QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 7.0, Quicken Premier 2008, Quicken Home and Business 2008, other new programs | October 15, 2007, 7:11 am |
| Q 2007 | July 31, 2006, 9:28 pm |
| For Mac 2007 | April 2, 2007, 8:53 pm |
| Help with TT H&B 2007 | April 23, 2008, 12:33 pm |
| Q 2007 unstable | August 27, 2006, 10:56 am |
| Turbotax 2007? | September 2, 2006, 2:39 pm |
| Q_deluxe 2007 ? | October 1, 2006, 7:53 pm |
|
|