Michael D. Schleif wrote: > Funny, you not only twist my words; but, you still will not take > literally your own words, ``well, it's a valid character, why shouldn't > it be there?''
Liar. Who's twisting words here? I never wrote what you attribute to me. I said all PRINTABLE characters should be allowed. Or don't you understand the difference between a printable character and a control character? > Did you mean something other than what your wrote? How can I know that, > unless you amend your written words? Or unless you bother to read it, which apparently is asking a bit much of you? > Actually, when you look at the code for windoze exploder, you will see > what I mean. The code is slow and inefficient, because -- partially, to > a degree, somewhat, not wholly -- of all the crazy notions they try to > implement, such as included whitespace and backslashes (\) -- what is > the escape character in windoze? Escape character? In command.com? Are you kidding? It's a terrible shell. We all know that. Spaces in filenames have nothing to do with it, however, nor do backslashes. > If I am to guess, I'd say that you come from a shell-less environment, > like windoze. I don't have to guess to say that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm writing this on a Linux machine that has no graphical file manager installed AT ALL. I do have a number of Gnome apps, and the panel, but no gmc, no Nautilus. My idea of a file manager is bash in a terminal window. > but, do > not delude yourself that the gui is efficient nor optimal, in terms of > getting things done with minimal overhead. That cannot ever be true! You really should do something about these delusional fantasies of yours. Why do you keep attributing to me things I have never come within a million miles of saying, to you or anyone else? You're just showing off what an idiot you are. Craig
