On 12.05.14 21:28, Mark Filipak wrote:
I listen to the BBC almost all the time. I think the hosts butcher
English as thoroughly as the average American.
True, the modern BBC's English on its website is egregious, with
adjectives morphing to nouns, as in The abducted Nigeria girls ...,
grating
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:52:22PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 12.05.14 21:28, Mark Filipak wrote:
I listen to the BBC almost all the time. I think the hosts butcher
English as thoroughly as the average American.
True, the modern BBC's English on its website is egregious, with
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:06:21AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
increasing prevalence of this odd usage. It's almost as bad as adding
apostrophes for plurals or third-person present tense verbs (e.g.
apostrope's instead of apostrophes or He let's his dog out vs.
He lets his dog out.).
* Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz [05-13-14 05:35]:
[...]
You forgot 'eggs it' = exit :)
and'artic'= arctic
Erik
(Scurrying for cover)
Well, I still close the hood of my automobile/truck and put the bonnet
on my girl. We will ignore spanner for the moment. :^)
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:58:36AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
...
Although, I still wonder why American English *HAS* to be different! The
phrase only in America! springs to mind here.
As an unknowing U.S. citizen I wonder about that only in America.
Are there no distinctions between the
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:39:14AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz [05-13-14 05:35]:
[...]
You forgot 'eggs it' = exit :)
and'artic'= arctic
Erik
(Scurrying for cover)
Well, I still close the hood of my automobile/truck
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
-snip-
More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
imposing (or has imposed) on us people who speak the proper English!
I'm sorry, but as an American I have
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 03:08:58PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
Iiuc, the comment pertains to the comment rather than the
syntax of send hook, ie: correct usage of the English written
word.
I believe he understood that and was making a joke, i.e. in English
should the single quotes
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]:
If, vim -c ':r /path/to/file' is used, what happens in mutt
is, vim gets two files to edit, /path/to/file and
/tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited.
Not at all. Did you try it?
You would have two files to edit if
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [05-12-14 12:10]:
[...]
And also FWIW, the one thing I was quite serious about was having had
too much rum. =8^)
Yes, Dos Equis *is* preferable as I have less questions to post about
recent events :^).
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield,
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
-snip-
More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
imposing (or has imposed) on us people who
On 2014/5/12 7:58 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
-snip-
More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
Derek:
On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is 'messed' in single
quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
why.
Are you implying that the single quotes should have been
escaped then ? ;)
--
GG
escaped then ? ;)
Iiuc, the comment pertains to the comment rather than the syntax of
send hook, ie: correct usage of the English written word.
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
get
why.
Are you implying that the single quotes should have been
escaped then ? ;)
Iiuc, the comment pertains to the comment rather than the syntax of
send hook, ie: correct usage of the English written word.
I believe he understood that and was making a joke, i.e. in English
should
On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
-snip-
More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
imposing (or has imposed) on us people who speak the proper English!
I'm sorry, but as an American I have to come out of lurk mode for this...
What you tried to write, Chris,
On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is 'messed' in single
quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
why.
Are you a coder, Derek? I use single-quotes when I'm coding because it's
faster; I don't have to hit the
While I'm glad you've got your syntax working, it is often easier (and more
flexible) to move tricky shell incantations off into a script.
As an example, I run a specialish vim incantation as my mutt editor. My muttrc
just says:
set editor=muttedit
and muttedit is a script in my bin
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
Not at all. Did you try it?
You would have two files to edit if you did:
vim -c :e /path/to/file
or
vim /path/to/file
But not with:
vim -c :r /path/to/file
I did try it, and arrived to the !cat idea for that reason,
but, for
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
The reason I'm using the !cat option is - like you mentioned, if
I only use :r /tmp/file, then, things get 'messed' up. And, while
in mutt, I find out that I'm editing two files, not good..
Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why
Hi Guy,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
The usage of -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' does solve the issue of
editing two files, but, I cannot seem to get the send-hook correct,
and depending on how/where I place my quotes, I get different
errors. -
Which is troubling,
On Fri,May 09 02:58:PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead
of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single
quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the
whole set editor=... bit.
Thank you.
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= vim -c \:r \!cat
/path/to/file\'
Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' = vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
--
JR
On Fri,May 09 03:14:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= vim -c \:r \!cat
/path/to/file\'
Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' = vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
Yes, and no.
While issuing
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]:
If, vim -c ':r /path/to/file' is used, what happens in mutt
is, vim gets two files to edit, /path/to/file and
/tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited.
Not at all. Did you try it?
You would have two files to edit if you did:
vim -c :e /path/to/file
or
vim
Greetings List.
I'm trying to add this command:
vim -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' to be used in a send hook :
send-hook ~t...@domain.com set editor= vim ':r !cat /tmp/bla'
The contents of /tmp/file should then be 'cat ' into the new
email.
While the above works fine from the main declaration in
my
Hi Guy!
On Do, 08 Mai 2014, Guy Gold wrote:
Greetings List.
I'm trying to add this command:
vim -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' to be used in a send hook :
send-hook ~t...@domain.com set editor= vim ':r !cat /tmp/bla'
The contents of /tmp/file should then be 'cat ' into the new
email.
On Fri,May 09 12:24:AM, Christian Brabandt wrote:
I am surprised, this works for your normal editor command. From my
understanding, Vim should try to open 2 files, namely ':r !cat /tmp/bla'
and the /tmp/mutt-... (which is your actual mail template.
To make this work, you should at least
28 matches
Mail list logo
