See - so I wasn't the only one who couldn't figure it out. And..........by that logic.........the WWC should have been changed to WWCX looong ago, as it went thru multiple iterations. And since it would have been impossible (or essentially so) to go back into all the discussions and record-keeping...................changing it 'now' for a reason (not a bad one) that should also have prompted earlier changes seems a bit unnecessary or superfluous? Yet again - not complaining, just pointing that out.
"And since it would have been impossible (or essentially so) to go back into all the discussions and record-keeping...................changing it 'now' for a reason (not a bad one) that should also have prompted earlier changes seems a bit unnecessary or superfluous? Yet again - not complaining, just pointing that out."
No need to. I put all the related discussion links in my info tab of WWCX home page? What should I do? You ask the same question here time and time again and expect me to answer you here everytime you ask it? I think I did it first time you did it. But then I got tired of it. Now you are complaining when I ask you to read my page?
TN,
i thought the transition from WWC to WWCX was handled quite well. There was overlap while the current WWC cycle ran to an end and the new WWCX started
Also it eased the pain when Hop was able to easily pick up SSC after joey's abrupt exit
And.............. given your disdain for winnable variants, why are you concerned?
@ Hop - kindly show me the first time where you 'splained that. Not using the links, as nowhere in those have you mentioned the software exegesis.
@ cellmate - I don't disagree. Was done very well. But again, nowhere (that I've been shown), did that "X" get 'splained, man- or otherwise. And yes, also agree that Hop's efforts have been fantastic and a nice addition. I guess I'm a needler for specificity - I suppose from long-learned and -used professional practices. AND - NOT just to be needling. I don't do it for fun (this AIN'T fun!); I do it because I want to understand and grasp what I'm seeing. That's why it's NOT complaining. It's my belief, further enhanced by this discussion, and noted before..........that Hop has a "blind spot" in terms of how other folks coming to his work can perceive it. Or are *capable* of perceiving it. His software background - apparently like yours - is computer programming-heavy. And you both are clearly very good at it. But most of us don't have that same background. So I see this problem as one of "translation" - from software-savvy folks to software-NON-savvy folks.
Hop introduced WWCX here and answered your question about X at the time
Of course new software stuff goes thru growing pains and is never perfect but usually gets better over time
Ah............THANK YOU! Only 4 years ago - but ok. I'll take the blame for not remembering that detail. But HOW MUCH simpler would it have been to just state that once more?!?
Hop, the burden of the results is now in the hands of the seeker. You stated anyone could post the results here if they chose to do so. Yet you found fault in that I didn't use your methods. I admit to using a little levity, but it was meant as good nature. There is nothing too serious that a lightened heart can't approach.
"Yet you found fault in that I didn't use your methods."
I said there is a button to copy the table. You would only need to come here paste it here. You complained that it was too wide and I created a narrow version of the table in case you would do it next time. Did you see it? And there was no "Copy table" in the "Weeks" tab and it has been added too. Did you check it out or notice it?
Still, you would insist in copying a picture of it here instead?
"Do you see the irony of saying anyone can post the results here, but only the way you want?"
I was only questioning why one would want to do it the hard way when there is an easier way. That said, anyone can do it whatever way they want.