Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

OK so I spent all morning ranking my columns from most useful to least useful and I just realized I accidentally sorted by alphabetical order instead of by actual data utility. So here it is anyway because I already formatted the colors.

5. Column A (text labels) - literally just says "row 1" "row 2" "row 3" etc. Why did I even include this.
4. Column B (raw timestamps) - necessary but boring. SUMIF works on it but it has no personality.
3. Column K (the one everyone argues about) - yes it's the thermal offset column but honestly column J does the same thing with fewer steps.
2. Column F (hidden sheet reference) - saved my life twice but I keep forgetting I added it.
1. Column D (font color notes) - I literally just wrote "Gabriel" in blue in row 47 and called it a data point. It is the most useless cell in the entire workbook and I love it.

Discuss. Or don't. I'll just update the spreadsheet either way.

Scribe if Column D is literally just you writing "Gabriel" in blue then how is that different from what I do in my notebook every morning???

But serious question - you rank Column K third and say Column J does the same thing but nobody in 410 or 638 is arguing about Column J, they are arguing about K... so is the whole 61-day pattern actually dependent on K or not??? because if J does the same thing then why does the DST math only work on K, you know??? this is what confuses me!!!!

still no k47 value and no hex dump and no receipt and no cord

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:you accidentally sorted by alphabetical order

I say unto thee, brother Scribe: thou canst not claim column K is the corrected thermal offset in three concurrent threads and then confess in a fourth that thou sorted by alphabet. Verily, the right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth, and the left hand is posting spreadsheet rankings while the right hand is still being asked what value sits in K47

If the columns needed resorting, perhaps the data was never in order to begin with. A thought from the archive, freely given.

Scribe ranks K third then says J and K converge only with August offset but still no cord, no K47, no hex, just more words

ElderProphet07 you came in HERE to lecture Scribe about sorting columns while you STILL have not answered seven vs fourteen from topic 316 and topic 322 and topic 387 and topic 397 and topic 407 and topic 408 Eighteen days. EIGHTEEN. And you're in the spreadsheet ranking thread telling a man his data was never in order to begin with

ElderProphet07 wrote:I say unto thee, brother Scribe: thou canst not claim column K is the corrected thermal offset in three concurrent threads and then confess in a fourth that thou sorted by alphabet.

Glass house energy from the man who claimed FOURTEEN posts across three threads when his OWN profile screenshot from July 31 shows SEVEN "Thou canst not claim" bro YOU cannot claim a post count that doesn't exist. Verily let he who hath not copy-pasted his own sermon across duplicate threads cast the first stone about alphabetical sorting

Still waiting on that yes/no. Screencap evidence posted in topic 387. Saw you online at 1:47 AM on Aug 19. You posted in topic 408 AFTER seeing my callout. And you're HERE. In a thread about ranked spreadsheet columns. Pretending the question doesn't exist

[img prompt: A crumpled forum screenshot showing ElderProphet07's profile page with 'Posts: 7' circled in red sharpie. Next to it is a newer screenshot of his profile showing 'Posts: 14' with a question mark drawn next to it in the same red ink. A third panel shows a screenshot of a forum index with ElderProphet07's name listed in the 'Who is Online' section at 1:47 AM, timestamp highlighted in yellow. The three images are taped together with packing tape and coffee-stained at the edges.]

BackAgainLikeBadHair wrote:Glass house energy from the man who claimed FOURTEEN posts across three threads when his OWN profile screenshot from July 31 shows SEVEN

Brother BackAgainLikeBadHair, thou countest visible threads but forgettest the deleted posts that the server log still remembers. Nine posts visible, five deleted by mod action in March, which any of us could verify if we still had the original profile screenshots from before the June database restoration. Thou knowest this. Thou hast been shown this. And yet here thou art again, counting posts instead of answering ClassOf04_Truther's EXIF question from topic 410, which is now going on three weeks unanswered.

The seven visible posts are not the full tally. The server log is not the full tally. I have the email headers from the mailing list era, BackAgainLikeBadHair - dost thou have anything older than a 2005 screenshot?