Fwd: Re: GNU cash 2.4.11 trial balance bug?

[Wm]

Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:42:51 <5505C49B.6010806 at tampabay.rr.com>  CCAAT 
<ccaat at tampabay.rr.com>

>On 03/15/2015 09:00 AM, Mike or Penny Novack wrote:
>> If there IS a bug in the trial balance feature, should of course be fixed.
>>
>> However there is the matter of how we might use a "trial balance" when
>> using computerized accounting software. Now I learned in the old days
>> when it was pen and ink on paper so I know what a trial balance is, why
>> it was done, and the sorts of human introduced errors it helped you find
>> (and so correct) before going to the next step of preparing reports.
>> Checkpoints of this sort were very important in the days of pen and ink
>> on paper.
>>
>> But computerized accounting systems are different. They simply will not
>> allow entry of out of balance transactions and will never make an error
>> transcribing numbers from one place to another. So assuming you have
>> already checked to make sure that there is nothing in "Imbalance" or
>> "Orphan", how are you making use of a "trial balance"? After all, it
>> WILL be in balance, no trial about it.
>
>I had 63K in consulting fees in 2012. I had zero income from consulting
> in 2013 and 2014. I limited the dates for 2014 only. The trial balance
>report still shows 63K. You tell me if that is a problem, accounting or
>software wise.

A TB is at a point in time.  Read that twice.

> If by definition the trial balance is always aggregated
>(cummulative) then why are we allowed to select periods?

For checking you haven't made a mistake

>No other errors have occurred in the 2.4.11 gnucash in my usag; granted
>my business usage is so simple it would be most faster to do everything
>by hand.

If you feel god is guiding you towards paper and pencil I strongly 
suggest you follow your imaginative deity's wishes.

>But that speaks to this being a bug,

Ummm, you do know "that speaks to this" is a weird turn of phrase not 
recognised in much of the english speaking world.

> since the entire journal
>for 3 years, is less that 10 pages (8.5 x 11).

Paper?  I don't try my accounts on that these days.

> Although I'm not an
>accountant, (Computer Scientist),

Uh oh

> I have had (2) old school accountants

You'd better get them to speak up for you, generally "someone said" is 
crap in reliability.

>and one recent (4.0) graduate with his CPA already, tell me it is a
>problem. I look forward to your opinion.

You are of less brain than you thought, you should rely on yourself 
rather than others.  Unless you are paying them, of course, in which 
case we look forward to their opinions.

-- 
Wm...