I stated that I had personally tried this method on three PCs and it didn't 
work. Now you can add to that two co-workers and a friend who have also tried this 
on their PCs and it didn't work for them either. Zero for six is not what I would 
consider a good success ratio in this instance. 

I didn't "demean their articles", I stated my opinion and I'll continue to do so 
as I see fit.  Additionally, I'll contact whomever I desire whenever I desire. 

I'm unimpressed by your name dropping, verbiage in general and failure to use a spell 
checker.  Unless you have something positive to contribute to accomplishing my objective, 
I see no need for any further correspondence from you.

>And my point was that you shouldn't say something does not work just because it 
didn't 
>work in your individual experience. If you follow this forum, you should know that 
>most of what is wrong with XP is, one way or another, self inflicted. Virus that 
>slips through MS cracks may be the main exception.
>
>XP has worked, on all my computers, without fatal problems and according to the 
book 
>since it came out. Depending on a lot of undefined environmental factors. Fixes 
that 
>work beautifully for me, don't work for others. Conversly, fixes that work for others 
>don't always work for me. 
>
>The point remains that the Annoyances post should not be removed on your sayso, 
nor 
>should it remain on my sayso. The Webmaster, and likely David Karp are far better 
>qualified to make that decision than either of us. Talk to them before you demean 
>their articles.
>
>






Written in response to:
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave' (Tom Swanson: Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:27 pm)


Responses to this message:
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave' (Tom Swanson: Monday, September 8, 2003 at 11:49 am)

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum