[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.setup

setup and deployment wizard within vb.net 2005

cgoldfed

1/25/2007 4:39:00 PM

i am trying to use the setup and deployment wizard within vb.net 2005. the wizard is
supposed to have 5 screens. the first time i ran it that was the case. when i run it now it only
has four screens. screen 3 (which project output groups do you want to include) does not come up anymore. what can i do to correct this.
16 Answers

Gunner

8/23/2012 5:18:00 AM

0

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:43:41 -0700, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote:

>On 8/21/2012 12:45 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <tJmdnQmCCZ3bNbPNnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>>
>>> Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to secular
>>> charities than liberals give, even though liberals have higher
>>> incomes. Talk about regressive "taxation"!
>>>
>>> Liberals are just more selfish, that's all.
>>
>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>> conservatives do.
>
>The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say that
>people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to donate to
>charity is to be totalitarian. Leftists are totalitarian.

Indeed they are. And have been since before the Civil War.

And haters...damn but Leftists are haters. They hate everybody who
isnt mentally ill like they are.

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

Mitchell Holman

8/23/2012 12:42:00 PM

0

Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote in
news:k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 8/21/2012 12:45 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <tJmdnQmCCZ3bNbPNnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>>
>>> Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to secular
>>> charities than liberals give, even though liberals have higher
>>> incomes. Talk about regressive "taxation"!
>>>
>>> Liberals are just more selfish, that's all.
>>
>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>> conservatives do.
>
> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say that
> people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to donate to
> charity is to be totalitarian. Leftists are totalitarian.
>


If conservatives should not be forced to contribute
to charities then liberals should not be forced to
finance wars.




Delvin Benet

8/23/2012 3:43:00 PM

0

On 8/23/2012 5:41 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote in
> news:k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 8/21/2012 12:45 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <tJmdnQmCCZ3bNbPNnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>>>
>>>> Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to secular
>>>> charities than liberals give, even though liberals have higher
>>>> incomes. Talk about regressive "taxation"!
>>>>
>>>> Liberals are just more selfish, that's all.
>>>
>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>>> conservatives do.
>>
>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say that
>> people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to donate to
>> charity is to be totalitarian. Leftists are totalitarian.
>>
>
>
> If conservatives should not be forced to contribute
> to charities then liberals should not be forced to
> finance wars.

But conservatives *aren't* forced to contribute to charities - they do
that entirely voluntarily. National defense, including the possibility
of waging war, is one of the few truly "public" goods. When the US went
to war in Afghanistan - a good war, without doubt - the illiberal
"liberals" in the US benefited from the destruction of the safe haven
for Al Qaeda right along with the conservatives and centrists.

wdstarr

8/24/2012 7:04:00 AM

0

In article <k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>> conservatives do.
>
> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say
> that people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to
> donate to charity is to be totalitarian.

I didn't say "to a charity."

> Leftists are totalitarian.

No, you just see the world in intense black and white.

-- wds

Gunner

8/24/2012 10:59:00 AM

0

On 24 Aug 2012 03:04:18 -0400, wdstarr@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:

>In article <k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>
>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>>> conservatives do.
>>
>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say
>> that people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to
>> donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>
>I didn't say "to a charity."
>
>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>
>No, you just see the world in intense black and white.
>
>-- wds

Shades of Gray eh? Oh...like the Nazis and the deathcamps..just
shades of gray...I get it!

Thanks for showing me the Leftwing Truths

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

Delvin Benet

8/24/2012 1:34:00 PM

0

On 8/24/2012 12:04 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>
>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>>> conservatives do.
>>
>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say
>> that people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to
>> donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>
> I didn't say "to a charity."

Of course you didn't - you're totalitarian, and you want the money to be
*taken*, not donated.


>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>
> No, you just see the world in intense black and white.

I see totalitarian leftists like you for what you are.

wdstarr

8/25/2012 3:39:00 PM

0

In article <y5ydncP785EtH6rNnZ2dnUVZ5r6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:

>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about
>>>> groupings that include tens of millions of people -- liberals
>>>> believe that people shouldn't have the _option_ of being
>>>> selfish, while conservatives do.
>>>
>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To
>>> say that people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much
>>> to donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>>
>> I didn't say "to a charity."
>
> Of course you didn't - you're totalitarian,

No I'm not.

> and you want the money to be *taken*, not donated.

I want everyone to be required to make an equitable contribution to
the common good. The only way I can see for this to happen is
through taxation. When you leave it up to people to make voluntary
donations, many don't.

>>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>>
>> No, you just see the world in intense black and white.
>
> I see totalitarian leftists like you for what you are.

The fact that you think you see something apparently has very
little to do with whether it actually exists.

-- wds

Delvin Benet

8/25/2012 3:46:00 PM

0

On 8/25/2012 8:39 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <y5ydncP785EtH6rNnZ2dnUVZ5r6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>
>>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about
>>>>> groupings that include tens of millions of people -- liberals
>>>>> believe that people shouldn't have the _option_ of being
>>>>> selfish, while conservatives do.
>>>>
>>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To
>>>> say that people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much
>>>> to donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>>>
>>> I didn't say "to a charity."
>>
>> Of course you didn't - you're totalitarian,
>
> No I'm not.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Of *course* you are! What an absurd and pointless
denial you just attempted!


>> and you want the money to be *taken*, not donated.
>
> I want everyone to be required to make an equitable contribution to
> the common good.

You're a totalitarian. "Required" - that's totalitarianism.

There is no such thing as "the common good." The confiscations - not
"contributions" - that you are advocating (because you're a
totalitarian) are not for any "common good" at all; they're to
redistribute wealth to people you declare to be deserving. Your
declaration is based on totalitarian thought.


>>>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>>>
>>> No, you just see the world in intense black and white.
>>
>> I see totalitarian leftists like you for what you are.
>
> The fact that you think you see something apparently has very
> little to do with whether it actually exists.

You are a totalitarian statist - not in rational dispute. You want to
confiscate value from people in order to serve a totalitarian ideal.
You need to be removed.

raven1

8/25/2012 6:31:00 PM

0

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:43:19 -0700, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote:

>On 8/23/2012 5:41 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote in
>> news:k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2012 12:45 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>> In article <tJmdnQmCCZ3bNbPNnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to secular
>>>>> charities than liberals give, even though liberals have higher
>>>>> incomes. Talk about regressive "taxation"!
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals are just more selfish, that's all.
>>>>
>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>>>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>>>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>>>> conservatives do.
>>>
>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say that
>>> people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to donate to
>>> charity is to be totalitarian. Leftists are totalitarian.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If conservatives should not be forced to contribute
>> to charities then liberals should not be forced to
>> finance wars.
>
>But conservatives *aren't* forced to contribute to charities - they do
>that entirely voluntarily. National defense, including the possibility
>of waging war, is one of the few truly "public" goods. When the US went
>to war in Afghanistan - a good war, without doubt - the illiberal
>"liberals" in the US benefited from the destruction of the safe haven
>for Al Qaeda right along with the conservatives and centrists.

Two questions:

1) Leaving aside whether or not the war was justified, what's your
proposed exit strategy for Afghanistan that doesn't make the whole
exercise a complete waste of lives and trillions of dollars? I can
think of exactly zero scenarios under which Afghanistan doesn't revert
right back to a safe haven for al Qaeda once the US pulls out.

2) It's unclear to me how we liberals benefited from the war in Iraq;
in fact, it seems that the biggest single beneficiary was Iran, whose
main regional rival we conveniently removed. Was that also a "good"
war, worth the lives of US troops, the lives of tens of thousands of
Iraqis who were no threat to us, and the trillions of dollars
squandered under false premises?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

Delvin Benet

8/25/2012 7:46:00 PM

0

On 8/25/2012 11:30 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:43:19 -0700, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2012 5:41 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> wrote in
>>> news:k4Cdnacmp4J9BajNnZ2dnUVZ5vadnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/21/2012 12:45 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> In article <tJmdnQmCCZ3bNbPNnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>> Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.n?t> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to secular
>>>>>> charities than liberals give, even though liberals have higher
>>>>>> incomes. Talk about regressive "taxation"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liberals are just more selfish, that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk about groupings
>>>>> that include tens of millions of people -- liberals believe that
>>>>> people shouldn't have the _option_ of being selfish, while
>>>>> conservatives do.
>>>>
>>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are wrong. To say that
>>>> people shouldn't have the option of choosing how much to donate to
>>>> charity is to be totalitarian. Leftists are totalitarian.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If conservatives should not be forced to contribute
>>> to charities then liberals should not be forced to
>>> finance wars.
>>
>> But conservatives *aren't* forced to contribute to charities - they do
>> that entirely voluntarily. National defense, including the possibility
>> of waging war, is one of the few truly "public" goods. When the US went
>> to war in Afghanistan - a good war, without doubt - the illiberal
>> "liberals" in the US benefited from the destruction of the safe haven
>> for Al Qaeda right along with the conservatives and centrists.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Leaving aside whether or not the war was justified, what's your
> proposed exit strategy for Afghanistan that doesn't make the whole
> exercise a complete waste of lives and trillions of dollars? I can
> think of exactly zero scenarios under which Afghanistan doesn't revert
> right back to a safe haven for al Qaeda once the US pulls out.

I can't think of one, either. We probably reached the point of
diminishing returns to our involvement a few years ago.

We should withdraw, and if the Taliban look like they're going to
reassert control, we warn them not to let Al Qaeda or any other global
terror organization back in, or else we'll come back again. If all they
do is inflict terror and misery on their own people, like North Korea
and the Castro Bros. in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela, we can live with that.


> 2) It's unclear to me how we liberals benefited from the war in Iraq;
> in fact, it seems that the biggest single beneficiary was Iran, whose
> main regional rival we conveniently removed. Was that also a "good"
> war, worth the lives of US troops, the lives of tens of thousands of
> Iraqis who were no threat to us, and the trillions of dollars
> squandered under false premises?

I didn't support the war in Iraq. That's why I only mentioned
Afghanistan in my introductory comments.