[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Gotta give this Paul guy a round of applause.
Indeed. I know you meant that ironically, but I understand your misperceptions. > 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? > we 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 arguments. With his suggestion, you and I could be equally happy - if all we wanted was 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 vaddaliasdomain. > 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. -- Paul Allen Softflare Support
