 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / General Topics 1 / June 2008Outlook
Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application outlook.exe, version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again isn't....anyone got any ideas, please.  SignatureGoat Granny Outlook-specific newsgroups include: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.general news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.contacts news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.bcm news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.fax news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_addins news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_vba news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.teamfolders news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.thirdpartyutil Signature~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ > Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application > outlook.exe, > version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault > address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again > isn't....anyone got any ideas, please. >Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application outlook.exe, >version 9.0.0.2416, faulting module ntdll.dll,version 5.1.2500.2180, fault >address 0x000106c3. Everything i have tried to get it to working again >isn't....anyone got any ideas, please. Why ask HERE? Do you see the word OUTLOOK in this group's title? NO. Ask elsewhere >>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application >>outlook.exe, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ask elsewhere You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron! >>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application >>>outlook.exe, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >You don't need to be so damn rude about it...moron! Stop your crying and live with it. >>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application >>>>outlook.exe, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Stop your crying and live with it. Kiss my a.s bitch. >>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting application >>>>>outlook.exe, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Kiss my a.s bitch. So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name calling. It's sad, really. >>>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting >>>>>>application [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It's > sad, really. - Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life. - >>>>>>>Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting >>>>>>>application [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life. >- Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying attention here? The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney pounded out on the keyboard: >>>>>>>> Outlook stopped working, getting message : Faulting >>>>>>>> application [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying > attention here? And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it. SignatureTerry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. > The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney > pounded out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > And he tried to be Mr. Knowledge by correcting your spelling > but then used "Your" instead of "You're". Gotta love it. - Sorry Terry, but in the context used, "your" was the intended word used, and not "you're" as you assert. I did not mean "you are" but the possessive "your". - The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded out on the keyboard: >> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney >> pounded out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > are" but the possessive "your". > - Sure Doug, if you think so. SignatureTerry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded out on the keyboard: >> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney >> pounded out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > are" but the possessive "your". > - If you meant it as a possessive, you would have said, "Your not so eloquent remarks/comments/etc, were the reason for my reply". But the way you worded it was incorrect. "Your not so eloquent" can only be stated as "You are not so eloquent". IF you would have left the comma out and said, "Your not so eloquent replies...", then you would have been correct. SignatureTerry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. > The date and time was 6/26/2008 11:39 PM, and on a whim, Doug > W. pounded out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > IF you would have left the comma out and said, "Your not so > eloquent replies...", then you would have been correct. - Terry R. : Then please remove the "bad" comma for me and we will both be ecstatically happy. - Cheers... - The date and time was 6/27/2008 8:53 AM, and on a whim, Doug W. pounded out on the keyboard: >>>>>>> So elequent. The best you can do is resort to name >>>>>>> calling. It's [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Cheers... > - Not happy, just correct. ;-) SignatureTerry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. You should have put a comma after 'your' to clarify. >> The date and time was 6/26/2008 6:11 PM, and on a whim, Gurney pounded >> out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > possessive "your". > - Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's break it down so all can see why, so we can put this to bed! This is what he posted: "Your not so eloquent, (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life". Ok...let's take the parenthesis and the words inside them out...and we have 'Your not so eloquent, and even sadder replies are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life. Now lets also take the words 'and even sadder' out, make *replies* singular so we get *reply*, and we're left with this. 'Your not so eloquent, reply are unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.' Next change *are* to *is* since things are no longer plural, and you have this: Your not so eloquent, reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life. Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it and you get this: Your not so eloquent reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life. If you STILL don't understand, take out the words 'not so eloquent', and you're left with this: 'Your reply is unnecessary...please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.' See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was talking about. > Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else > a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was > talking about. My head hurts! :-) >> Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something >> else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > My head hurts! :-) Lol...it was rather drawn out and long wasn't it? Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze! > Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something > else a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was > talking about. The date and time was 6/28/2008 9:24 AM, and on a whim, Still learning pounded out on the keyboard: > Wow....this is really getting comical, but it also speaks to something else > a bit more serious...guess what it is? Anyway, Doug is CORREC T. Let's [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > See...YOUR *is* the proper word, because it was Gurney's reply he was > talking about. You state yourself, "Take out the comma because now you wouldn't need it..." Problem was the comma WAS there which made it incorrect. The comma made the sentence state (in effect), "You're not so eloquent,..." If the comma would have been omitted to begin with, everything would have been fine. SignatureTerry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. > The date and time was 6/28/2008 9:24 AM, and on a whim, Still learning > pounded out on the keyboard: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > If the comma would have been omitted to begin with, everything would > have been fine. To really clarify the intent of the sentence, it should have read: "Your not-so-eloquent (spelled correctly), and even sadder replies are unnecessary... please resist the temptation to reply as they don't pertain to Windows XP. Try alt.get_a_life.? SignatureJoe =o) (snipped) >"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message > Now THAT is a good reply. No name calling, just good old fashioned > ribbing with just a tad of sarcasm. Still Learning, are you paying > attention here? You didn't understand me the first time? I said 'kiss my a.s bitch", and keep smooching until you lose the rudeness. There was no need for you to respond to the OP the way you did. Take a look at PA Bear's response to the OP. He said what he had to say in a civilized way, not being at all crude, rude, and a basic idiot like you. Did *you* pay attention? You are a complete moron. >(snipped) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >rude, and a basic idiot like you. Did *you* pay attention? You are a >complete moron. Why is it that YOU can be rude but want to spank me when I was? Does that not make you a hypocrite? I'm not resorting to the name calling that you do, just pointing out a fact. >>(snipped) >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that not make you a hypocrite? I'm not resorting to the name calling > that you do, just pointing out a fact. I just told you. I did NOT like how rude you were to the OP...pure and simple. You were NOT helpful at all. All you did was chastise the person for asking an Outlook question here. Well maybe they didn't know about the Outlook newsgroups, maybe their computer wasn't working, they freaked and posted here. And then they get a response like yours. it wasn't cute, necessary, or called for. People should understand that not everyone who posts here knows all of the rules. So to answer your question, I never said you name called, I said you were rude to the OP and you were. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.