<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Excel 2007 Formulas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/</link>
	<description>Daily posts of Excel tips…and other stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:58:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: natasha</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-28929</link>
		<dc:creator>natasha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-28929</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;hello from natasha. your book is great!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hello from natasha. your book is great!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Kusleika</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22572</link>
		<dc:creator>Dick Kusleika</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22572</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Well, 2:00 PM CST has come and gone and that means the contest is over.  I&#039;ll be poring over the entries this weekend weeding out duplicates and will provide you with a winner and some stats on Monday.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Congrats to VReed who slipped in just under the deadline, although it looks like it might be a duplicate.  Tsk, tsk.  And thanks to Sue who just missed the deadline.  You see I already coded the part that checks for late entries.  If nobody sent a late one, I might never have know if it worked.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, 2:00 PM CST has come and gone and that means the contest is over.  I&#8217;ll be poring over the entries this weekend weeding out duplicates and will provide you with a winner and some stats on Monday.</p>
<p>Congrats to VReed who slipped in just under the deadline, although it looks like it might be a duplicate.  Tsk, tsk.  And thanks to Sue who just missed the deadline.  You see I already coded the part that checks for late entries.  If nobody sent a late one, I might never have know if it worked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Shepherd</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22529</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Shepherd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22529</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nice one Dick,&lt;br&gt;
Thanks for running the contest!&lt;br&gt;
I haven&#039;t paid too much attention yet to Excel 2007, but I had a good knowledge of 2003 and earlier (and I don&#039;t remember many differences in functions, more the irritating reshuffle of PivotTables over the years that embarrassed me while presenting training courses!)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By the way we don&#039;t have basements in NZ as most of our dwellings are single-storey. But you&#039;re welcome to my garage instead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-Alex&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice one Dick,<br />
Thanks for running the contest!<br />
I haven&#8217;t paid too much attention yet to Excel 2007, but I had a good knowledge of 2003 and earlier (and I don&#8217;t remember many differences in functions, more the irritating reshuffle of PivotTables over the years that embarrassed me while presenting training courses!)</p>
<p>By the way we don&#8217;t have basements in NZ as most of our dwellings are single-storey. But you&#8217;re welcome to my garage instead.</p>
<p>-Alex</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22527</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22527</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Dick I couldn&#039;t help noticing you had a pretty all encompassing disclaimer on your original rules.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;i&gt; &quot;I reserve the right to change the rules, cancel the contest, not ship the book, move into your basement, and exclude anyone and everyone. Generally, to do anything that prevents legal troubles for me or stops people from complaining. &quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;for a guy who claims &lt;i&gt;&quot;I hate those stupid .... disclaimers so much.&quot; &lt;/i&gt; that&#039;s pretty rich !&lt;br&gt;
BTW: my corporate disclaimer is 1382 characters long&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Dick I couldn&#8217;t help noticing you had a pretty all encompassing disclaimer on your original rules.<br />
<i> &#8220;I reserve the right to change the rules, cancel the contest, not ship the book, move into your basement, and exclude anyone and everyone. Generally, to do anything that prevents legal troubles for me or stops people from complaining. &#8220;</i></p>
<p>for a guy who claims <i>&#8220;I hate those stupid &#8230;. disclaimers so much.&#8221; </i> that&#8217;s pretty rich !<br />
BTW: my corporate disclaimer is 1382 characters long</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike M.</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22522</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22522</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Dick,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&#039;t work on the tax side of my firm, I just follow orders.  However, in scanning &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IRS Circular 230&lt;/a&gt;, I think I found what you were looking for.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On page 25 of the Circular near the bottom of the left column there is a definition of a &quot;marketed opinion.&quot;  The disclosures we put in our emails and other communications are more or less a CYA statement to indicate that the communication is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a marketed opinion, which is covered in items 5(ii)(A),(B), and (C) on that same page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Basically it states that the recipient cannot use the advice to avoid tax penalties, that the advice given is specific to the circumstances address, and that the taxpayer should seek advice based on their individual circumstances.  Or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So rather than trying to pick and choose what emails should be tagged with the disclosure, all email are tagged automatically when they go through the server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now my brain hurts from reading IRS documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I hope that was what you were looking for.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dick,</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t work on the tax side of my firm, I just follow orders.  However, in scanning <a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf" rel="nofollow">IRS Circular 230</a>, I think I found what you were looking for.</p>
<p>On page 25 of the Circular near the bottom of the left column there is a definition of a &#8220;marketed opinion.&#8221;  The disclosures we put in our emails and other communications are more or less a CYA statement to indicate that the communication is <b>not</b> a marketed opinion, which is covered in items 5(ii)(A),(B), and (C) on that same page.</p>
<p>Basically it states that the recipient cannot use the advice to avoid tax penalties, that the advice given is specific to the circumstances address, and that the taxpayer should seek advice based on their individual circumstances.  Or something like that.</p>
<p>So rather than trying to pick and choose what emails should be tagged with the disclosure, all email are tagged automatically when they go through the server.</p>
<p>Now my brain hurts from reading IRS documents.</p>
<p>Anyway, I hope that was what you were looking for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Kusleika</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22520</link>
		<dc:creator>Dick Kusleika</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22520</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Some stats:  Of the 77 respondents so far, all have the correct subject, none are late (obviously), 3 that were otherwise valid are duplicates (all the same guy) (there are other duplicates that are invalid), and 45 have something in the body.  Only 29 have followed the rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 45, 28 have less than five characters in the body and 11 have exactly one character in the body.  Every email of the 28 that has the same number of characters in the body also has the same characters in the body, to wit:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Char - ASCII codes&lt;br&gt;
1 - 160&lt;br&gt;
2 - 13,10&lt;br&gt;
3 - 160,13,10&lt;br&gt;
4 - 13,10,13,10&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&#039;t know why these people have non-printing characters in their email, but I&#039;m allowing them.  The new rule is that if your email body contains only the characters 160, 13, 10, and 9, then it will be deemed to be empty and it will not be rejected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That results in 58 valid entries, 6 dupes.  I&#039;ll post the code I&#039;m using Friday afternoon to minimize people trying to game the system.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some stats:  Of the 77 respondents so far, all have the correct subject, none are late (obviously), 3 that were otherwise valid are duplicates (all the same guy) (there are other duplicates that are invalid), and 45 have something in the body.  Only 29 have followed the rules.</p>
<p>Of the 45, 28 have less than five characters in the body and 11 have exactly one character in the body.  Every email of the 28 that has the same number of characters in the body also has the same characters in the body, to wit:</p>
<p>Char &#8211; ASCII codes<br />
1 &#8211; 160<br />
2 &#8211; 13,10<br />
3 &#8211; 160,13,10<br />
4 &#8211; 13,10,13,10</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why these people have non-printing characters in their email, but I&#8217;m allowing them.  The new rule is that if your email body contains only the characters 160, 13, 10, and 9, then it will be deemed to be empty and it will not be rejected.</p>
<p>That results in 58 valid entries, 6 dupes.  I&#8217;ll post the code I&#8217;m using Friday afternoon to minimize people trying to game the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Murphy</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22519</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Murphy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22519</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;According to UK law all (or nearly all) communications from a company must have the company number and registered address, including emails. Just came in this year, I think most people will ignore it till someone gets done.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/21/new_web_email_regulation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/21/new_web_email_regulation/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It seems a bit odd that if I answer a NG question about Excel from my codematic email address I need to include a load of pointless irrelevant stuff because its a company, so I don&#039;t.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;cheers&lt;br&gt;
Simon&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to UK law all (or nearly all) communications from a company must have the company number and registered address, including emails. Just came in this year, I think most people will ignore it till someone gets done.<br />
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/21/new_web_email_regulation/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/21/new_web_email_regulation/</a></p>
<p>It seems a bit odd that if I answer a NG question about Excel from my codematic email address I need to include a load of pointless irrelevant stuff because its a company, so I don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>cheers<br />
Simon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Kusleika</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22516</link>
		<dc:creator>Dick Kusleika</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22516</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I couldn&#039;t see that requirement in my brief of review of Circular 230.  Does anyone have a more specific cite?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#8217;t see that requirement in my brief of review of Circular 230.  Does anyone have a more specific cite?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike M.</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22515</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22515</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Speaking as a CPA working for a public accounting firm in the US, we are required to put certain stupid email disclaimers on our email as required by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;rlz=1T4WZPA_en___US208&amp;q=irs+circular+230&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IRS Circular 230&lt;/a&gt;.  Stupid or not, we have to do it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I didn&#039;t use my work email so there wasn&#039;t a disclaimer on my email entry!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking as a CPA working for a public accounting firm in the US, we are required to put certain stupid email disclaimers on our email as required by <a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;rlz=1T4WZPA_en___US208&amp;q=irs+circular+230" rel="nofollow">IRS Circular 230</a>.  Stupid or not, we have to do it.</p>
<p>Anyway, I didn&#8217;t use my work email so there wasn&#8217;t a disclaimer on my email entry!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Peltier</title>
		<link>http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2007/02/16/excel-2007-formulas/#comment-22511</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Peltier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/?p=1606#comment-22511</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Unfortunately, some people have no choice but to make themselves look like fools every time they send an email from their company account. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fortunately my company has no such asinine practices. And if anything stupid comes down from Corporate, I can easily change it, because I&#039;m corporate.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Unfortunately, some people have no choice but to make themselves look like fools every time they send an email from their company account. </i></p>
<p>Fortunately my company has no such asinine practices. And if anything stupid comes down from Corporate, I can easily change it, because I&#8217;m corporate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

