On Mar 16, 2011, at 5:40 PM, steve harley wrote: > On 2011-03-16 14:13 , Joseph McAllister wrote: >> It is counterproductive to produce a software or hardware commodity to meet >> the needs of everyone who might use them. > > "meet the needs of everyone" is a bit rhetorical, but the general idea has > proven quite productive, e.g. for Microsoft and for the open source > community, to produce tools with a huge number of obscure configuration > options (whereas the options i'm talking about aren't particularly obscure); > and lord knows the web browsing experience is immensely configurable through > JavaScript and HTML5; there is a tension between doing this and also having > the options stay out of the way > > that's not what i'm talking about though -- at this point the discussion is > about the phenomenology of email and workflow choices, although if your email > client bunches up the thread it might be harder to follow ;?> > The phenomenology of email? HAR! Way to lob a big word at the opposition. Phenomenology is the study of phenomena -- the plural of phenomenon. "Phenomenon" is somewhat obtuse, but it generally means an occurrence, usually relating to nature. So you're saying the discussion is about the study of natural occurrences of email? Minus ten points for obfuscation. Paul
> >> If you don't like the way MAIL behaves, adapt, or go elsewhere for your >> solution. DON'T whine about it on PDML. > > oh god, no whining now? > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
