That is correct, she did not answer the question...

I think what may be closer to the fact is that I alledged that she did not give as complete an answer as would be considered proper under the circumstances. Further, it is my opinion that she stopped short of a complete answer in order to entice the original poster to make his way over to the Hentzenwerke site and hopefully, place an order for the book.

FWIW, I am not entirely sure she was capable of providing a more complete answer...< s >...

Case and point, Tamar refered to a sample in her book. Was it such a complicated sample? No. In fact, it was a very trivial example..I did it in a few lines of code. If you search the archives up here, you can probably find similar code. Would it have been that hard for Tamar to answer the question completely as opposed to half-hearted response whose primary motive was to steer traffic toward the Hentzenwerke site and hopefully, a sale????

In questions like this, it is almost always preferrable to express the answer in the form of a code snippet. And, while I could excuse this as an oversight on her part, the fact remains, she took enough time to clearly outline what was in her book and where folks could buy it.

All that said, I am for promoting ones work. I promote my stuff all of the time. On more than one occassion, I have pointed folks in the direction of my book. However, that was never done at that expense of answering a question.

Again, it is just my opinion.... I could be wrong...




>>>>Yes, if you pass anything recognizable and unique to Recipients.Add, Outlook >>>will handle it.
>>And this alleged ommission changes the validity of my point in what way??????
>
>You said she didn't answer the question.