[sword-devel] bug in SWORD's bible structure representation

[Pergamum]

Solomon,

I know that sometimes these side topics become somewhat distracting so I
would prefer actually to make my final comment in private email. I
unfortunately don't know how to pick single addresses out of a group email
list. In this case however since I opened my mouth in front of the whole
group it is only appropriate that I complete my comments in the same manner
so that accountability may be made to all I may have offended or confused by
my comment. As I said, I apologize for jumping the gun earlier. But I feel I
need to explain my comment on salvation. In a sense I guess it was in the
same humor context that your original post was. I was trying to demonstrate
what a small problem the Philemon 1:1 thing seemed. It was not a glitch (or
feature) that affected the text of the book in any meaningful way, nor would
it's existence mislead someone through wrongful reading and make them miss
the key to Salvation. I was trying to compare it to a glitch tantamount to
say, an accidental omission of John 3:16 or 14:6. However I do think my
rather pointed tone blew the sarcasm right out of the letter. I honestly
should have known better than to think someone on the list here would
actually be trying to disrupt the work.
I hope you can forgive my oversight.

In Christ Jesus,
Pergamum

----- Original Message -----
From: J. Solomon Kostelnik <roz@one.net>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Monday, 07 August, 2000 10:17
Subject: RE: [sword-devel] bug in SWORD's bible structure representation


Pergamum and others,

I understand that reading an email message can make interpretation
difficult, since there's no tone, etc.  That's why I put smilely faces, to
hopefully point out when I am laughing or smiling in real life as I write
it.

Just to clarify, the others were right.  My post wasn't intended to be
mocking at all.  I just wondered why if a person entered 1:1 for Philemon
that it would consider it incorrect.  Isn't this the mailing list for
development of Sword?  Since 1:1 exists in Philemon, I wondered why Sword
thought it didn't and sent me to Hebrews instead.

I think my question was valid, and not at all mocking.  Apparently, others
believe that it's a bug too, so it's not just me.  I don't know why you
brought salvation into this thread (?), as I was speaking of a software
glitch, and not about anyone's faith.

So, back to the subject, can anyone tell me how to pull up a specific verse
in Philemon, or Jude, now that I think about it?  Should I do "Phm 4" or
"Jude 4" or will it think I'm asking for chapter 4?  Or maybe there's just
no current way to go directly to a verse in a single chapter book?

To the developers, thanks in advance for considering my request!

In the Love of Yahweh,
Solomon

-----Original Message-----
From: Pergamum [SMTP:pergamum@netzero.net]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:09 AM
To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] bug in SWORD's bible structure representation

I have to disagree... correct me if I'm wrong but the chapter/verse feature
is standard and universal in SWORD by default. So it would take extra coding
to actually remove 1:1 from Philemon. My question is: What does that issue
have to do with Salvation? Why strain at a gnat like that? So Philemon says
"1:1". I don't think it should be made a point of contention. It's called
simplifying the program. If Philemon works just fine saying 1:1, then live
with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the important thing is to
continue searching for formatting and functionality glitches. I'm not
attempting to be rude or to belittle you here Solomon... however your
comment seems to merely be an attempt to mock the efforts of those that pour
their hearts into this work.

In Christ Jesus,
Pergamum


----- Original Message -----
From: J. Solomon Kostelnik <roz@one.net>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Sunday, 06 August, 2000 16:26
Subject: RE: [sword-devel] bug in SWORD's bible structure representation


haha, a feature. :)

Well, that's odd.  The general accepted abbreviation of Philemon is Phm, not
Phil.  Who changed it? :)  And why would it think that 1:1 is unacceptable
for Philemon?  It DOES have one chapter, right? ;)  Come on!!  I think
you're stretching the "feature" bit a tad too far. :)

Solomon


____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________




____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________