🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:52:21 GMT, seetheplane@my.sig wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:48:00 GMT, <mblockNO_SPAM@blocktax.com> (Mike
>Block - Tax Cut C.P.A.) wrote:
>
>>I strongly suggest never use the Inactive function. It results in 
>>hidden transactions and report totals that do not add to detail.
>>Simply put zz in front of items you no longer want. 
>>
>Say that again . . . Perhaps I misunderstood what you said, I've never
>seen a report ignore an inactive account whether it be an employee or
>an old credit card account or an obsolete sub-contractor that I have
>"hidden" so if I'm missing something I sure do want to know what it
>is.

If something is not there it is hard to select it in filters.  I do not 
know if the Inactive function now works in reports generally. 
When it first appeared we had many problems and found it 
was better not to use it. This involved reports not having detail 
that was in the totals. However, I did not see such problems 
in limited 2001tests done tonight. 

     Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
 World's #1 QuickBooks Top Tester
    FREE  NetLedger accounting 
  FREE 462p QB books/error codes
100+ QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
QB no-spam news: biz.comp.accounting
-----------------------------------
Spam bait admin@localhost abuse@localhost
 webmaster@localhost postmaster@127.0.0.1
 enforcement@sec.gov cyberfraud@nasaa.org