[ùàåì]

Hi
I found on excel helpfile the description of the functin DATEDIF
but it does not exsit on excel function list.
Can you help me find it?
Thank you
Shaul

[Orlando Magalhães Filho]

Hi,

This function is available in Excel, but is documented only in Excel 2000
see this page:

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/datedif.htm


HTH

---
Orlando Magalhães Filho

(So that you get best and rapid solution and all may benefit from the
discussion, please reply within the newsgroup, not in email)

"ùàåì" escreveu na mensagem
...
Hi
I found on excel helpfile the description of the functin DATEDIF
but it does not exsit on excel function list.
Can you help me find it?
Thank you
Shaul

[John Wilson]

Shaul,

The answer to your question can be found on
Chip Pearson's site.
Had you not multiposted to all the ng's, I'd have given you the
direct link to what you want.
Since you did, though, visit this site:
http://www.cpearson.com/excel/newposte.htm
then go to his home page and search for your answer.

John

"ùàåì" wrote:

Hi
I found on excel helpfile the description of the functin DATEDIF
but it does not exsit on excel function list.
Can you help me find it?
Thank you
Shaul

[Harlan Grove]

"John Wilson" wrote...
....
Had you not multiposted to all the ng's, I'd have given you the
....

If you're going to be sanctimonious why not get your terminology correct?
The OP *crossposted*, NOT multiposted. Outside the microsoft.* newsgroups
crossposting is generally accepted. In other words, for some of us the OP
did nothing wrong.

So, for the OP, here's the link.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/datedif.htm

[Don Guillett[_4_]]

John,
FWIW, I fully agree that we should tell the OP about netiquette HERE.
Sometimes we are a bit more curt than we should be but we SHOULD tell them.

--
Don Guillett
SalesAid Software
Granite Shoals, TX

"John Wilson" wrote in message
...
Harlan,

I guess I was being a little sanctimonious and in retrospect, it
would probably have been better not to post a reply at all.
Before writing this though, I had done a little homework and
noticed that this OP had *multiposted* back on June 30th.
Yes, this particular one was a *crosspost* as you pointed out.

My only goal was to to try to educate the OP on newsgroup
nettiquette for any subsequent posts that he might make. The
result of which, if he did heed the advice, would be to save
someone in the future from wasting time answering a post that
had already been answered.

If you check the .programming ng, you'll notice that Orlando
did, in fact, give the OP the direct link to Chip's "datedif"
page hours before you wasted whatever time it took you to
look it up and post it here.

Yes, there are some gray areas as to what is accepted ng
nettiquette and from your post, I can see that this is one of
them. Every once in a while someone jumps on the bandwagon
and we all lament on things that OP's do wrong in the ng's
and ways to solve it but I rarely see a concerted effort to do
anything about it.

Personally, most of the things that OP's do "wrong", including
posting attachments, doesn't bother me. Whenever I have
posted a message such as this, it was done for the "common
cause" (whatever that might be). I could, of course, have been
a little less sanctimonious though.

In the future, I'll just stick to answering whatever questions I'm
capable of in the ng's and not worry about trying to educate the
OP's on proper ng nettiquette.

Regards,
John

[John Wilson]

Don,

Regradless of what I posted in my response to Harlan, I'm
certain that I'll point new posters to either Chip's or Dave's
"new poster" pages when appropriate.
The question, of course, is who determines when it's appropriate?
In Harlan's eye's, either what I did or how I did it on this particular
post, wasn't appropriate. No matter. He's entiltled to his opinions.

I was hoping by my original post that the OP would visit Chip's
page on posting nettiquette and then find the answer that he was
looking for within Chip's site (kind of a "kill two birds with one
stone" approach). Admittedly, it was worded a little sanctimoniously
though and I'll do my best to refrain from that in the future.

Of course, when someone chastises an OP as I did in this post
and someone else gives the OP the answer that they're looking for
without the chastisement, it leaves the chastiser (me) open to
whatever wrath the OP might wish to unleash on me. I'm sure
you know that can sometimes get ugly.

While my response to the OP could have been worded a little better,
my intent was to help him get the answer he was looking for and at
the same time, alert the OP to the nettiquette rules. Having Harlan
chastise me for the way that I treated the OP is something along
the lines of the "pot calling the kettle black", though.

Oh well, I do very much enjoy the time that I spend in these
newsgroups and will sureley continue to do so.
Life goes on.

Take care and thanks for the reply,
John


Don Guillett wrote:

John,
FWIW, I fully agree that we should tell the OP about netiquette HERE.
Sometimes we are a bit more curt than we should be but we SHOULD tell them.

--
Don Guillett
SalesAid Software
Granite Shoals, TX

[Harlan Grove]

"Don Guillett" wrote...
FWIW, I fully agree that we should tell the OP about netiquette HERE.
Sometimes we are a bit more curt than we should be but we SHOULD tell them.
....

In newsgroups other than the microsoft.public.excel.* ones, crossposting AS
DISTINCT FROM multiposting is acceptable conduct. In another thread a few
weeks ago, David McRitchie claimed this wasn't so in 'technical' newsgroups.
I countered with the observation that Google Groups searches of
comp.lang.perl.* and comp.lang.awk (and comp.os.linux.misc upon subsequent
review) have few is any complaints about crossposting, mostly complaints
about crossposting to IRRELEVANT newsgroups. Check for yourself if you don't
believe me.

All that matters in USENET is that postings be ON-TOPIC. It's quite possible
that one posting can be on-topic in a dozen different newsgroups.

But it's only here that people get bent out of shape about crossposting.
Disclaimer: I don't care what Chip or David's sites have to say about
netiquette if USENET rules are different. Even for microsoft.* newsgroups,
I'll go along with the SPONSOR'S (Microsoft's) rules, and there's squat all
about either crossposting or multiposting in

http://www.microsoft.com/communities...on123121120120

Now we do agree about file attachments. Why? Because they waste bandwidth
and make synchronizing take longer. Also, there's virus worries (not much a
reason, IMO, since it's easy to turn off macros). But all are objective
reasons. Also, there's broad consensus that it's bad. As for multiposting,
also bad, mostly for the same reasons as well as fracturing responses. But
crossposting is different.

Anyone using Outlook Express or any other newsreader that uses message IDs
as keys into [effectively] databases of newsgroup articles suffers NOTHING
from crossposted articles - once a crossposted message is read in one
newsgroup, it's marked as read in all others. This doesn't help with CDO or
Google or the [execrable] AOL newsreader, but there are alternatives to
these, many still free, so I have little sympathy. And even so, damn few of
the regular responders use Web interfaces.

There's a broad consensus about file attachments and *multiposting*, but
less of one for crossposting (if I'm the only one who doesn't mind it, so be
it). There's also the *FACT* that USENET netiquette is at most silent about
crossposting per se, and ONLY requires that postings be on-topic. That's why
it's not uncommon to see questions about writing firmware for video
controllers in comp.os.linux.development.system and comp.harware with no one
getting huffy.

The claim that many of the regulars read all groups is irrelevant if the
regulars offer no answers (granted a rare occurrence in some of the ngs).
Also, there are quite a few regulars in .programming who never seem to
respond in .misc or .worksheet.functions.

Crossposting just doesn't bother me, and I find it odd that the rest of you
get so bent out of shape about it because you're not all so stupid that you
fail to understand that it's NOT THE SAME as multiposting. Or are you?

[Harlan Grove]

"John Wilson" wrote...
....
My only goal was to to try to educate the OP on newsgroup
nettiquette for any subsequent posts that he might make. The
result of which, if he did heed the advice, would be to save
someone in the future from wasting time answering a post that
had already been answered.
....

Fine. It was the way you responded that got to me. No direct answer, just a
link to a newposter site. You should have given a link to the DATEDIF page
as well. Just my opinion, FWLIW.

As for wasting people's time, crossposting as opposed to multiposting,
doesn't, at least for those using newsreaders that make intelliegent use of
message IDs.

If you check the .programming ng, you'll notice that Orlando
did, in fact, give the OP the direct link to Chip's "datedif"
page hours before you wasted whatever time it took you to
look it up and post it here.
....

Yes, and the reason I DIDN'T see that is because Orlando responded ONLY in
..programming. So who fractured the thread - the OP or Orlando?

[John Wilson]

Harlan,

It was the way you responded that got to me.
Agreed. I could have worded it better.

No direct answer, just a link to a newposter site.
You should have given a link to the DATEDIF page
as well. Just my opinion, FWLIW.
My intent was to get him to the newposter page first
and with a little more effort, get the answer he needed.
IMHO, it doesn't hurt for anyone to who gets help here
to have, at one time or another, read Chip's or Dave's
"Hint's and Tips for New Posters" whether it agrees with
Microsoft's "rules" or not.

As for wasting people's time, crossposting as opposed to multiposting,
doesn't, at least for those using newsreaders that make intelliegent use of
message IDs.
I honestly didn't really understand the difference till now. It is rather neat
the way it's set up in the ng's that if you post a reply to a crosspost it
shows up as read in all the ng's. So I learned something.

So who fractured the thread - the OP or Orlando?
Obviously, Orlando did.

Respectfully,
John

[J.E. McGimpsey]

Followup set to microsoft.public.excel.misc

In article ,
"Harlan*Grove" wrote:

There's a broad consensus about file attachments and *multiposting*, but
less of one for crossposting (if I'm the only one who doesn't mind it, so be
it).

You're not the only one - I had a go at this a couple of years ago.
Didn't convince anyone that I know of. Cross-posting to appropriate
groups wastes nothing and increases the liklihood of an appropriate
response, so I'm all for it.

The one legitimate, IMO, argument against actively promoting it was
made by David McRitchie regarding the fracturing of threads in the
archives. Google apparently archives messages in the first group
only, so if posts are made from multiple groups the threads will be
broken. This, while true, is an inconvenience worth accepting as
long as cross-posts stay a small percentage of threads. The archives
are a great resource, but the value in ngs is the near real-time
interaction.

And since this has gotten so far off-track for most of the groups'
purposes, I'm setting followup to microsoft.public.excel.misc,
which, purely IMO, ought to have been done several replies ago.