Longshadow wrote:
Well, Office 365 is a bit different that when I created the condition under an older version...
Try:
Conditional Formatting button on the toolbar
select highlight cell rules
select condition (<, >, +, etc.)
enter formatting.
Good luck! It's kinda cryptic.....
I'll report back once I try it.
Longshadow wrote:
Let me find the background color code to maybe save you some trouble....
That's cool. I think when presenting a lot of numbers, having a visual clue as to which ones are important to focus on helps the audience in following along.
Longshadow wrote:
One can concatenate text with cell data also.
This one is for a header cell that tells me at a glance how many entries are in the sheet (allows up to about 300):
=CONCATENATE("COMPANY (",COUNTA(A2:A302)," entries)")
The result is:
COMPANY (204 entries)
Love the power in Excel....
I like to use that when I'm going to pull the data table from Excel to a PowerPoint presentation.
Longshadow wrote:
Been using Excel for years...
One spreadsheet I have tallies income and bills, the cell background for the net total is made either green or red for the balance being positive or negative, and automatically changes. Excel is powerful, but it does exactly what you tell it to do, not necessarily what you want it to do....
I've used excel type programs since they came out (yes, I remember some old ones). I built a lot of "if, then" formulas, v lookup, and other features. Never thought to change the cell background color. Clever. I'm going to play to do that. Thanks.
Without seeing the spreadsheet, it's hard to know, but the other values in the column may add up to $2700 + the $300 may look like it's adding $3000 instead of $300. All a function of the formula used.
Longshadow wrote:
Correct.
I'll guess a fault in the overall formula methodology.
I always use the balance from the previous line and add/subtract deposits and withdrawals from the new (next) line, creating a new balance on the new line.
I don't think a "non-licensed copy" would do faulty math.
If you share the spreadsheet (privately) with someone who is an Excel user, they'll be able to figure it out.
Otherwise we'll just have to guess on stuff.
That's how I diagnosed it too. Sounds like you'd be a good pair of eyes to help him out.
SteveR wrote:
I am picking up the correct row. The problem is, why is it adding $3000 instead to $300.
Look at the formatting of the cell that has the $300 entry. With Excel, it's always operator error (me ).
Shouldn't columnB be your deposit/withdrawal and columnC be the ending balance?
A total sum of all of columnB will be your net addition. The amount in ColumnC to have an ending balance should be the previous ending balance C column cell + the new entry in the B column cell. =c2+ b3. If you copy the formula down the column, be sure it's picking up the correct row.
Firstshot wrote:
Went to the Biltmore exhibit a couple of weeks ago. Awsome!
How were the crowds? I'm headed there next week.
Racmanaz wrote:
Liar, you did imply it that’s why you included it.
Prove it was implied and not inferred.
FrumCA wrote:
Where did I say Trump was exonerated? Nice attemped seque to alter the point of the conversation.
That's been the point. You and Rac believe Russian involvement on trump's behalf and with his knowledge or direction is a lie. It is not; it's left open. Let's hope for definitive answers in our lifetimes.
FrumCA wrote:
That's fine. I'll rely on official reports, not media opinions. Carry on.
I will. Hope you do too. Highlight the paragraphs in the posted official records that say Trump has been exonerated. I read the full report. Did you? Or are you relying on a report from right media?
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
https://rollcall.com/2020/08/18/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference-2016-e******n-report/
FrumCA wrote:
I don't need to prove it's a lie. The issue has been beaten to death and is hardly worth tossing grenades back and forth over. The Senate Intelligence Committee found no collusion between Russia and the Trump. That's good enough for me.
Good for you. It's not enough for me. We have our "partisan interpretations". I believe if the parties were reversed, you'd feel the same as I do.
Here are the committee's findings. There are many unanswered questions. I can understand why you just want the questions to stop.
"The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as Mueller did and as the House intelligence committee’s 2018 report did, about whether there is sufficient evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the e******n to him and away from Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-e******n
https://www.newsweek.com/durham-report-trump-exonerated-russia-fbi-2016-e******n-1800527#
With these conclusions, I have just as much of a basis to call you a liar as you do me. Which is none.
FrumCA wrote:
If YOU believe a lie and refuse to accept documented evidence of same, it's hardly worthwhile wasting time discussing it.
As of yet, you haven't proven it a lie. It's been proven that trump solicited Russia's help, trump Jr. took a meeting to get help from Russia, FBI confirmed Russia helped trump and worked to hurt Clinton, there are meetings by Giuliani with Russians on trumps behalf, and met with Russians on trumps behalf. Mueller confirmed activity with trump campaign. I sure hope, as the article stated, that the 2020 E******n i**********e case also answers all the lingering questions left from 2016 that are so far unanswered by a judicial court. It sure presents a trump MO.