On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
> > The mutt site is really more a vast collection of links, and I'm more
> > likely to align with Robert here -- if you're recommending the product
> > ostensibly you know something about it, and it might be much more
> > sensible to ask a direct question as opposed to sifting through a very
> > lengthy list of URLs, not a few of which are either stale or linked to
> > further punchlists of arcane commands, in order to get a quick piece
> > of information that can be answered in a one-line reply.
>
> Now you're not paying attention. I did answer in a one-line reply. I
> said it was "fully customizable". And I rarely exaggerate. But that
> wasn't good enough for Rob.
If everyone really meant "fully customizable" when they said it, it
wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, over 50% of the people using it
don't *really* mean it, and it may be over 90%. It's become a buzzword
(buzzphrase?) that is used in situations where it shouldn't be, so many
people have learned the hard way *not* to take it at face value.
I figure now that I know your strictness for accuracy in using this term,
in the future I will take you at your word when you use "fully
customizable". But I will still continue to question others using this
term if I don't know just how strict they are with its use.
Should I assume similar strictness in accuracy for all terms from you?
(I'm thinking probably so, unless you're being silly, at which point a
number of rules fly out the window, to be replaced by a set of new
rules....)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
