[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Gotta give this Paul guy a round of applause.
Indeed. I know you meant that ironically, but I understand your
> I have never seen anyone who uses his sheer incompetency as a brutal
> attack weapon. Have you ?
Many, many times when I have dealt with the idiots who get loose from
alt.flame. Look in a mirror for an example.
> if it is soo important to you
It is rather trivial to me personally because I can work around it.
And if I thought that I were the ONLY person who thought this a good
idea I WOULD work around it. However, in the spirit of Open Source I
contribute ideas that I think might help a significant number of others.
It's called "improving the product."
> and it seems from what you're saying that it is also soo important to
> everyone else
Please show me where I wrote "everyone else" or even implied it. I
suggested that a significant number of others might find it useful.
I thought that was the Open Source way - you design something that is
capable of satisfying ALL users, not the small number that are satisfied
with how Microsoft decree the software will behave.
Tell us all, just what do you personally have to lose if I and others
get a feature that would make us happy even though you would be unhappy
if FORCED to use that feature, if the feature is optional? Come on, what
makes you so insistent that I should not have something that I consider
useful if I do not force it upon you? Why is it that giving me something
I would like, at no expense to you, is so personally hateful to you?
That is the Royal "we" is it?
For your information, Tom Collins posted a suggestion which would make
the behaviour automatic no matter which way around you wanted the
With his suggestion, you and I could be equally happy - if all we wanted
to make our lives easier and not to make the lives of those who disagree
with us harder. It is my understanding that if Tom thought my suggestion
as bad as you do then he would not have offered an improvement. YMMV.
> would love for you to submit a patch at once so we can all benefit.
I am not fluent in C. I am fluent in perl and could contribute a script
instantly. However, I do not believe that a script is the correct answer.
Either my suggestion is idiotic (as you imply) and no script is needed
or it is a sensible suggestion and is better handled within
> This way, only a bit of your precious time is wasted and not THOUSANDS of
> man hours
Hmm, I suggested that there might be thousands of people who would like
the same behaviour. I would guess that, on average, it would take them
five minutes to knock up a suitable script (a lot less for me, a lot
more for those unfamiliar with scripting languages). That is a LOT
less than thousands of man-hours. Please tell us where I claimed that
thousands of man-hours would be required or give us justification for
you inferring that from what I actually wrote. Or admit that you are
putting words in my mouth.
BTW, please let us all know when you understand enough about mailing
lists NOT to quote the entirety of the mail to which you respond. Some
of us would take that as an indication that you have finally heard the
ringing of the cluephone, even if you have yet to figure out what the
ringing means or how to deal with it.