Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #448915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 14:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 22:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 23:16 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 17:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:12 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:11 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 17:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:19 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:18 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 07:23 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 06:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:32 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:15 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:42 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 13:21 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:59 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:11 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:26 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:37 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:45 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:51 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 12:38 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:55 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:07 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:33 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:50 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 14:48 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:13 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:47 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:56 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:58 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:28 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:52 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:12 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-25 20:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 19:52 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 05:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 02:49 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:52 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 08:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:40 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 21:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:12 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:48 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 18:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:17 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 17:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 18:27 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:49 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:29 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:27 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 10:02 -0700
Password protected FTP folders would work. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:09 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:18 -0700
Students can "collaborate" ( cheat ) using email. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:25 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 17:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 18:47 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 09:53 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:02 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 10:50 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 11:00 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:13 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 01:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:26 +0000
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:42 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:16 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 01:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 08:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 18:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:47 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-04-29 15:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:39 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:39 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 16:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 17:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 19:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 16:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 17:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:46 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 06:50 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:06 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 08:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 23:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 22:32 -0700
60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:21 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:25 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 21:34 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 22:05 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:55 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:02 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 07:07 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-30 09:36 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 11:22 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:20 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:15 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:22 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:29 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:58 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 00:41 +0000
I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 18:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 01:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:20 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 12:35 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:31 -0500
I work two jobs. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 08:15 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:39 -0400
Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 09:11 -0700
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 13:59 -0400
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:29 -0400
Not everyone needs to be a supermodel. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:43 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:24 -0400
Re: I work two jobs. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:31 -0700
I've been living this way for 30 years. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:15 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:27 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:37 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:42 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 20:46 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:17 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:59 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 22:50 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:45 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 12:48 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:40 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:13 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 19:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:56 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 04:06 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:30 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:58 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:36 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:16 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:50 -0700
You called ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:10 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:34 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:32 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:48 -0700
I do _not_ eat fast food; I cook. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:37 -0700
I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:00 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:27 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:30 +0000
I'm not the only couch potato. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:46 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:55 +0000
A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 20:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 04:24 +0000
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:13 -0400
Rubber Vaginas. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:02 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:25 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:05 -0400
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:24 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:38 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 10:59 -0400
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:08 -0600
No caffine, No alcohol, No women; just a constant "happy". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:22 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:04 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:37 +0000
I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:02 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:15 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:18 -0700
SearchBar is standard to FireFox but... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:10 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-24 10:49 +0100
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-24 05:36 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 19:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:48 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:11 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 21:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 04:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:21 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:36 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4911637e-2466-49de-a4ac-dc3a2e0423ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449028 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I want to be clear I am *NOT* suggesting such work would be impossible > >> >> >>>>>>> or even particularly hard on Linux... but to use the language of Linux > >> >> >>>>>>> users, macOS has more choices of workflow. :) More than that, though, it > >> >> >>>>>>> has more streamlined ones. > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> As I remember things, your "streamlined" workflow involved starting to email > >> >> >>>>>> an attachment, *then* deciding to edit the attachment. That's a disorganized > >> >> >>>>>> workflow if you ask me. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> You can do it either way — but what is wrong about annotating an > >> >> >>>>> attachment? > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Nothing. It's the ordering of steps in your workflow. You load an > >> >> >>>> email client, then attach, then annotate the attachment. It's like > >> >> >>>> starting your car, then having to go back into the house because you > >> >> >>>> forgot something. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> How so? What steps would you take to, say, send a recipe or craft project > >> >> >>> you see on a webpage as a PDF, adding notes? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> For Linux I suggested: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 1) Save as PDF > >> >> >>> 2) Open in an annotation program and edit > >> >> >>> 3) Save again > >> >> >>> 4) Open email program > >> >> >>> 5) Attach > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I remember you making a big deal about being able to click > >> >> >> on the attachment and edit it in place. Was that not the > >> >> >> case? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I noted it and the benefits but also noted you can do the same task on > >> >> > Linux with a less streamlined workflow (and I describe the same or nearly > >> >> > same workflow above). > >> >> > > >> >> > What issue do you have with annotation of attachments? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> None, other than from a "workflow" standpoint: the annotations > >> >> should be completed *before* loading the email client. > >> > > >> > Why? If you can annotate before and in the email client, that's a positive, > >> > not a negative, even if you choose to never use it. I've never use Mail's > >> > MarkUp feature but I can see how it'd be handy if you only then decide > >> > to annotate something. > >> > >> It's a positive as far as the *capability* to do it is concerned, > >> but as a "workflow" it is not the most efficient or logical. > > > > The point is, as a workflow, you don't *have* to use it. Anything that enables > > flexibility in a workflow creates an environment that raises the potential for a > > better workflow (that's one of the reasons you like the CLI). > > > >> It also is completely out of the ordinary for a recipe that you have used, > >> modified, and are sharing, along with your recommended modifications: > >> such a recipe you would already have on hand, including your personal > >> modification notes, and so it would be just a matter of emailing a PDF > >> (or whatever) that you had already edited. > > > > And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last > > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that > > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one > > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. > > Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szb083gav.hu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449044 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> I want to be clear I am *NOT* suggesting such work would be impossible >> >> >> >>>>>>> or even particularly hard on Linux... but to use the language of Linux >> >> >> >>>>>>> users, macOS has more choices of workflow. :) More than that, though, it >> >> >> >>>>>>> has more streamlined ones. >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> As I remember things, your "streamlined" workflow involved starting to email >> >> >> >>>>>> an attachment, *then* deciding to edit the attachment. That's a disorganized >> >> >> >>>>>> workflow if you ask me. >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> You can do it either way — but what is wrong about annotating an >> >> >> >>>>> attachment? >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> Nothing. It's the ordering of steps in your workflow. You load an >> >> >> >>>> email client, then attach, then annotate the attachment. It's like >> >> >> >>>> starting your car, then having to go back into the house because you >> >> >> >>>> forgot something. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> How so? What steps would you take to, say, send a recipe or craft project >> >> >> >>> you see on a webpage as a PDF, adding notes? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> For Linux I suggested: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> 1) Save as PDF >> >> >> >>> 2) Open in an annotation program and edit >> >> >> >>> 3) Save again >> >> >> >>> 4) Open email program >> >> >> >>> 5) Attach >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I remember you making a big deal about being able to click >> >> >> >> on the attachment and edit it in place. Was that not the >> >> >> >> case? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I noted it and the benefits but also noted you can do the same task on >> >> >> > Linux with a less streamlined workflow (and I describe the same or nearly >> >> >> > same workflow above). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What issue do you have with annotation of attachments? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> None, other than from a "workflow" standpoint: the annotations >> >> >> should be completed *before* loading the email client. >> >> > >> >> > Why? If you can annotate before and in the email client, that's a positive, >> >> > not a negative, even if you choose to never use it. I've never use Mail's >> >> > MarkUp feature but I can see how it'd be handy if you only then decide >> >> > to annotate something. >> >> >> >> It's a positive as far as the *capability* to do it is concerned, >> >> but as a "workflow" it is not the most efficient or logical. >> > >> > The point is, as a workflow, you don't *have* to use it. Anything that enables >> > flexibility in a workflow creates an environment that raises the potential for a >> > better workflow (that's one of the reasons you like the CLI). >> > >> >> It also is completely out of the ordinary for a recipe that you have used, >> >> modified, and are sharing, along with your recommended modifications: >> >> such a recipe you would already have on hand, including your personal >> >> modification notes, and so it would be just a matter of emailing a PDF >> >> (or whatever) that you had already edited. >> > >> > And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >> >> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. > > If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e60f9d9-37a0-416a-8622-fab5dd3554bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449050 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:58:58 PM UTC-7, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> I want to be clear I am *NOT* suggesting such work would be impossible > >> >> >> >>>>>>> or even particularly hard on Linux... but to use the language of Linux > >> >> >> >>>>>>> users, macOS has more choices of workflow. :) More than that, though, it > >> >> >> >>>>>>> has more streamlined ones. > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> As I remember things, your "streamlined" workflow involved starting to email > >> >> >> >>>>>> an attachment, *then* deciding to edit the attachment. That's a disorganized > >> >> >> >>>>>> workflow if you ask me. > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> You can do it either way — but what is wrong about annotating an > >> >> >> >>>>> attachment? > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Nothing. It's the ordering of steps in your workflow. You load an > >> >> >> >>>> email client, then attach, then annotate the attachment. It's like > >> >> >> >>>> starting your car, then having to go back into the house because you > >> >> >> >>>> forgot something. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> How so? What steps would you take to, say, send a recipe or craft project > >> >> >> >>> you see on a webpage as a PDF, adding notes? > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> For Linux I suggested: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> 1) Save as PDF > >> >> >> >>> 2) Open in an annotation program and edit > >> >> >> >>> 3) Save again > >> >> >> >>> 4) Open email program > >> >> >> >>> 5) Attach > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I remember you making a big deal about being able to click > >> >> >> >> on the attachment and edit it in place. Was that not the > >> >> >> >> case? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I noted it and the benefits but also noted you can do the same task on > >> >> >> > Linux with a less streamlined workflow (and I describe the same or nearly > >> >> >> > same workflow above). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What issue do you have with annotation of attachments? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> None, other than from a "workflow" standpoint: the annotations > >> >> >> should be completed *before* loading the email client. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why? If you can annotate before and in the email client, that's a positive, > >> >> > not a negative, even if you choose to never use it. I've never use Mail's > >> >> > MarkUp feature but I can see how it'd be handy if you only then decide > >> >> > to annotate something. > >> >> > >> >> It's a positive as far as the *capability* to do it is concerned, > >> >> but as a "workflow" it is not the most efficient or logical. > >> > > >> > The point is, as a workflow, you don't *have* to use it. Anything that enables > >> > flexibility in a workflow creates an environment that raises the potential for a > >> > better workflow (that's one of the reasons you like the CLI). > >> > > >> >> It also is completely out of the ordinary for a recipe that you have used, > >> >> modified, and are sharing, along with your recommended modifications: > >> >> such a recipe you would already have on hand, including your personal > >> >> modification notes, and so it would be just a matter of emailing a PDF > >> >> (or whatever) that you had already edited. > >> > > >> > And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last > >> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that > >> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one > >> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. > >> > >> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. > > > > If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? > > Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the > attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type > than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. Time to blame the cult-like herd of convenient friends! What System76 looks like is irrelevant and is no big deal, especially if it's support is good. Once Staci M. Elliot understood how convincing Krystal Lynn is at portraying himself as the 'scapegoat' he realizes this isn't quite as insane as it appeared. Good grief, just recently he was declaring himself the only "true Linux advocate", and claiming that "advocates" (in mockery-quotes just to annoy Staci M. Elliot) are insisting desktop Linux is perfect as is. The guy is as popular as a fart in a spacesuit -- and with good cause. That lame duck update system failed over and over again. If you have 'some_file.txt' open in a word processor such as Cooledit and Krystal Lynn wants to change its name to 'linux.doc' via a hot key while porting a program, Staci M. Elliot's suggestion might be good, if only to build a set of script tools. -- E-commerce Simplified!! http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fk9i35Fbmm4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449050 |
On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>> >> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>> >> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>> >> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >> > >> > If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? > Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the > attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type > than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. How would you do this? I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it and later delete it or whatever. I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sabz9090ga.n99vuo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449056 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>>> >> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>>> >> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>>> >> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>>> >> >>>> >> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >>> > >>> > If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? > >> Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the >> attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type >> than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. > > Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: > > I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with > an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the > person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed > up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the > easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. > > How would you do this? > > I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of > text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it > and later delete it or whatever. > > I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would > just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. > > I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, edit, upload. If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, depending on the email client: https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a different method.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkcgmhF1bidU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449139 |
On 4/25/18, 1:54 PM, owl wrote: > Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>>>>>> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>>>>>> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>>>>>> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >>>>> >>>>> If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? >> >>> Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the >>> attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type >>> than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. >> >> Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: >> >> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >> >> How would you do this? >> >> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >> and later delete it or whatever. >> >> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. > > I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online > document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, > edit, upload. Pretty much as I described (which is fine). > If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, > depending on the email client: > > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa > > The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws > doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it > is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped > in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a > different method. Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same (double click image, edit, save). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 02:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a90zb803fa.vgho@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449150 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/25/18, 1:54 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>>>>>>> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>>>>>>> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>>>>>>> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? >>> >>>> Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the >>>> attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type >>>> than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. >>> >>> Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: >>> >>> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >>> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >>> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >>> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >>> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >>> >>> How would you do this? >>> >>> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >>> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >>> and later delete it or whatever. >>> >>> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >>> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. >> >> I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online >> document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, >> edit, upload. > > Pretty much as I described (which is fine). > >> If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, >> depending on the email client: >> >> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa >> >> The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws >> doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it >> is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped >> in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a >> different method. > > Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: > > <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> > > Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. > If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same > (double click image, edit, save). > OK, fixed it a bit. Instead of replying to the email, and having to select a file to attach, you can click "send to" on the image and skip all those steps: https://pewtube.com/user/owl/PIrFjVb?autoplay=off
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkct7uF3odkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449154 |
On 4/25/18, 7:45 PM, owl wrote: > Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/25/18, 1:54 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>>>>>>>> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>>>>>>>> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>>>>>>>> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? >>>> >>>>> Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the >>>>> attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type >>>>> than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. >>>> >>>> Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: >>>> >>>> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >>>> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >>>> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >>>> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >>>> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >>>> >>>> How would you do this? >>>> >>>> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >>>> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >>>> and later delete it or whatever. >>>> >>>> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >>>> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. >>> >>> I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online >>> document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, >>> edit, upload. >> >> Pretty much as I described (which is fine). >> >>> If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, >>> depending on the email client: >>> >>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa >>> >>> The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws >>> doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it >>> is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped >>> in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a >>> different method. >> >> Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: >> >> <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> >> >> Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. >> If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same >> (double click image, edit, save). >> > > OK, fixed it a bit. Instead of replying to the email, and having to > select a file to attach, you can click "send to" on the image and skip > all those steps: > > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/PIrFjVb?autoplay=off > Looks like you created a new email... which for this specific case works fine but might mess up threading or if there was more text would confuse thing. But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <azv8003.agh3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449155 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/25/18, 7:45 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/25/18, 1:54 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/24/18, 12:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> And you can do that... but for the times when you want to add a last >>>>>>>>>>> > minute annotation the flexibility to do so expands the workflow. If that >>>>>>>>>>> > flow was reliant on an apparently 'out of step' procedure that'd be one >>>>>>>>>>> > thing... but this isn't reliant, it's just there if you need it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you wanted to allow for a 'last minute' annotation, how is it not? >>>>> >>>>>> Last minute in what sense, though? You can do your edit then email the >>>>>> attachment with a shell command one-liner that takes less time to type >>>>>> than loading and filling out fields in a gui email client. >>>>> >>>>> Here is an example I ran into just a few minutes ago: >>>>> >>>>> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >>>>> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >>>>> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >>>>> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >>>>> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >>>>> >>>>> How would you do this? >>>>> >>>>> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >>>>> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >>>>> and later delete it or whatever. >>>>> >>>>> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >>>>> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. >>>> >>>> I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online >>>> document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, >>>> edit, upload. >>> >>> Pretty much as I described (which is fine). >>> >>>> If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, >>>> depending on the email client: >>>> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa >>>> >>>> The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws >>>> doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it >>>> is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped >>>> in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a >>>> different method. >>> >>> Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: >>> >>> <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> >>> >>> Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. >>> If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same >>> (double click image, edit, save). >>> >> >> OK, fixed it a bit. Instead of replying to the email, and having to >> select a file to attach, you can click "send to" on the image and skip >> all those steps: >> >> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/PIrFjVb?autoplay=off >> > Looks like you created a new email... Any reply is a "creating a new email." > which for this specific case works > fine but might mess up threading or if there was more text would confuse > thing. I'm still feeling my way around claws and its options, so I can't say for sure that there is no way to "reply" and pull in the attachment automatically. claws has some interesting features, such as tying stdin and stdout pipes to shell commands, sort of like sc, so it's got ahold of my curiosity. > But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions > you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) > > Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? > Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I said before, it's an out-of-order workflow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkcumnF40b2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449156 |
On 4/25/18, 8:07 PM, owl wrote: ... >>>>>> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >>>>>> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >>>>>> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >>>>>> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >>>>>> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you do this? >>>>>> >>>>>> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >>>>>> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >>>>>> and later delete it or whatever. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >>>>>> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. >>>>> >>>>> I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online >>>>> document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, >>>>> edit, upload. >>>> >>>> Pretty much as I described (which is fine). >>>> >>>>> If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, >>>>> depending on the email client: >>>>> >>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa >>>>> >>>>> The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws >>>>> doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it >>>>> is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped >>>>> in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a >>>>> different method. >>>> >>>> Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: >>>> >>>> <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> >>>> >>>> Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. >>>> If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same >>>> (double click image, edit, save). >>>> >>> >>> OK, fixed it a bit. Instead of replying to the email, and having to >>> select a file to attach, you can click "send to" on the image and skip >>> all those steps: >>> >>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/PIrFjVb?autoplay=off >>> >> Looks like you created a new email... > > Any reply is a "creating a new email." Sure... but I am confident you knew what I meant: it does not have the threading or text of a reply, subject lines can be more easily altered, etc. >> which for this specific case works >> fine but might mess up threading or if there was more text would confuse >> thing. > > I'm still feeling my way around claws and its options, so I can't > say for sure that there is no way to "reply" and pull in the attachment > automatically. claws has some interesting features, such as tying > stdin and stdout pipes to shell commands, sort of like sc, so it's > got ahold of my curiosity. Fair enough. >> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >> >> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >> > > Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I > said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is it out of order when done with images and PDFs? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 03:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <az80bzf.ehvoeu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449157 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/25/18, 8:07 PM, owl wrote: > ... >>>>>>> I got an email from a relative -- the email included an attachment with >>>>>>> an image showing a bunch of people from a group they are in (the >>>>>>> person's kid). These are people I do not see often and they were dressed >>>>>>> up. I was asked if I could find their kid in the group. I figured the >>>>>>> easiest way to do this was to circle the kid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How would you do this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I merely replied, went into Markup and added the circle, added a bit of >>>>>>> text, and then sent it. No need to copy and paste the image or save it >>>>>>> and later delete it or whatever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can make a video showing this. Works very well... for the demo would >>>>>>> just use a "Where's Waldo" type image. >>>>>> >>>>>> I primarily use gmail web interface, and I don't have any of those online >>>>>> document editing thingies linked in, so the only option there is a download, >>>>>> edit, upload. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty much as I described (which is fine). >>>>> >>>>>> If I did feel a need for doing what you describe, it is possible, >>>>>> depending on the email client: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/jO24sGa >>>>>> >>>>>> The editing is inline, and no manual saving is needed, but because claws >>>>>> doesn't seem to have an option to include the attachments in a reply, it >>>>>> is necessary to select a file for attachment, but that has been dropped >>>>>> in /tmp, so there is no lasting clutter. Another client would need a >>>>>> different method. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough. In case you did not see my video on it: >>>>> >>>>> <https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles> >>>>> >>>>> Does that help you to understand what I mean by a streamlined workflow. >>>>> If you have round-trip editing of images it would be roughly the same >>>>> (double click image, edit, save). >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK, fixed it a bit. Instead of replying to the email, and having to >>>> select a file to attach, you can click "send to" on the image and skip >>>> all those steps: >>>> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/PIrFjVb?autoplay=off >>>> >>> Looks like you created a new email... >> >> Any reply is a "creating a new email." > > Sure... but I am confident you knew what I meant: it does not have the > threading or text of a reply, subject lines can be more easily altered, etc. > >>> which for this specific case works >>> fine but might mess up threading or if there was more text would confuse >>> thing. >> >> I'm still feeling my way around claws and its options, so I can't >> say for sure that there is no way to "reply" and pull in the attachment >> automatically. claws has some interesting features, such as tying >> stdin and stdout pipes to shell commands, sort of like sc, so it's >> got ahold of my curiosity. > > Fair enough. > >>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >>> >>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >>> >> >> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I >> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. > > The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is > it out of order when done with images and PDFs? > > Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the same file that you originally attached. You cannot even reliably discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment for reference. At any rate you made a big deal about not having to save a copy of the file. Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just make your corrections to the document *before* you attach it and send it. That's the normal workflow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkd10dF4fdoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449158 |
On 4/25/18, 8:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>> >>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >>>> >>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >>>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I >>> >> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. >> > >> > The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is >> > it out of order when done with images and PDFs? >> > > Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. Right: and they may very well be shared with question... which button do I press, where is X in this image, which is your favorite whatever, etc. > If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the > same file that you originally attached. I think sending the same file back, with no edits, would be more rare than sending an edited one back. Unless the first person later loses the file what is the point? > You cannot even reliably > discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since > you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment > for reference. Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed. > At any rate you made a big deal about not having > to save a copy of the file. I am noting the workflow is easier... but go out of my way to repeatedly note the work would not be hard on Linux (or Windows) which lacks this feature (as far as I know). > Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. > Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to > make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just > make your corrections to the document*before* you attach it and send it. Generally you would not be fixing a typo with an annotation. I think you are missing some part of what is happening. > That's the normal workflow. It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a9z08x8ba.ahou4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449159 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/25/18, 8:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> >>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >>>>> >>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >>>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I >>>> >> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. >>> > >>> > The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is >>> > it out of order when done with images and PDFs? >>> > >> Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. > > Right: and they may very well be shared with question... which button do > I press, where is X in this image, which is your favorite whatever, etc. > >> If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the >> same file that you originally attached. > > I think sending the same file back, with no edits, would be more rare > than sending an edited one back. Unless the first person later loses the > file what is the point? > Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? >> You cannot even reliably >> discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since >> you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment >> for reference. > > Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed. > Did you not see where I wrote "outside of the email"? Email threads are a poor approach to file management. "Oh, *that* file... Let me dig around in my 12 gig gmail archive and see if I can find it. What was the subject of the thread again?" >> At any rate you made a big deal about not having >> to save a copy of the file. > > I am noting the workflow is easier... but go out of my way to repeatedly > note the work would not be hard on Linux (or Windows) which lacks this > feature (as far as I know). > The workflow is not "easier." It is both illogical and careless. >> Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. >> Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to >> make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just >> make your corrections to the document*before* you attach it and send it. > > Generally you would not be fixing a typo with an annotation. I think you > are missing some part of what is happening. > It was you who made the comparison of editing an attachment to editing an email body text. pdf and word processor documents are common types of attachment. Why is your workflow good for annotations and drawings but not for text editing of the attachment? >> That's the normal workflow. > > It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit > an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example. > And if the PDF is your resume? This workflow of yours is only appropriate for throwaway documents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 05:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkd73cF5mn0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449160 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/25/18, 8:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >>>>>>>>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I >>>>>>> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. >>>>> >>>>> The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is >>>>> it out of order when done with images and PDFs? >>>>> >>> Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. >> >> Right: and they may very well be shared with question... which button do >> I press, where is X in this image, which is your favorite whatever, etc. >> >>> If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the >>> same file that you originally attached. >> >> I think sending the same file back, with no edits, would be more rare >> than sending an edited one back. Unless the first person later loses the >> file what is the point? >> > > Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the examples talked about. > > >>> You cannot even reliably >>> discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since >>> you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment >>> for reference. >> >> Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed. >> > > Did you not see where I wrote "outside of the email"? > Email threads are a poor approach to file management. > "Oh, *that* file... Let me dig around in my 12 gig gmail > archive and see if I can find it. What was the subject > of the thread again?" You can save the files elsewhere if you need (drag and drop or right click and hit save, but this is going off topic). >>> At any rate you made a big deal about not having >>> to save a copy of the file. >> >> I am noting the workflow is easier... but go out of my way to repeatedly >> note the work would not be hard on Linux (or Windows) which lacks this >> feature (as far as I know). >> > > The workflow is not "easier." It is both illogical and careless. How so? You saw an example where it is not. In each of the examples I have given it has been logical and straightforward. Think of paper — someone gives you a document to mark on and you hand it back. Happens in the digital world, too. > >>> Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. >>> Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to >>> make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just >>> make your corrections to the document*before* you attach it and send it. >> >> Generally you would not be fixing a typo with an annotation. I think you >> are missing some part of what is happening. >> > > It was you who made the comparison of editing an attachment to editing > an email body text. pdf and word processor documents are common types > of attachment. Why is your workflow good for annotations and drawings > but not for text editing of the attachment? If you have tools for that I guess? But you are again going to other types of documents. > >>> That's the normal workflow. >> >> It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit >> an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example. >> > > And if the PDF is your resume? > This workflow of yours is only appropriate for throwaway documents. The image I sent to show I can recognize someone, sure, no need to keep it. The recipe or lesson plan or perhaps even the showing of what widget to click very well might be kept. But at least the tools I have work best for fairly simple annotations done quickly as a fast reply, sure. If I get a paper from a student I open it in a word processor to mark it, then send that back. If I had some type of round trip editing I might use that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 02:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47abb0ac-2d33-46d7-8195-fb81c0971b9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449161 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:41:03 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/25/18, 8:46 PM, owl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions > >>>>>>>>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I > >>>>>>> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. > >>>>> > >>>>> The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is > >>>>> it out of order when done with images and PDFs? > >>>>> > >>> Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. > >> > >> Right: and they may very well be shared with question... which button do > >> I press, where is X in this image, which is your favorite whatever, etc. > >> > >>> If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the > >>> same file that you originally attached. > >> > >> I think sending the same file back, with no edits, would be more rare > >> than sending an edited one back. Unless the first person later loses the > >> file what is the point? > >> > > > > Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? > > In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the > examples talked about. > > > > > > >>> You cannot even reliably > >>> discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since > >>> you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment > >>> for reference. > >> > >> Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed. > >> > > > > Did you not see where I wrote "outside of the email"? > > Email threads are a poor approach to file management. > > "Oh, *that* file... Let me dig around in my 12 gig gmail > > archive and see if I can find it. What was the subject > > of the thread again?" > > You can save the files elsewhere if you need (drag and drop or right click > and hit save, but this is going off topic). > > >>> At any rate you made a big deal about not having > >>> to save a copy of the file. > >> > >> I am noting the workflow is easier... but go out of my way to repeatedly > >> note the work would not be hard on Linux (or Windows) which lacks this > >> feature (as far as I know). > >> > > > > The workflow is not "easier." It is both illogical and careless. > > How so? You saw an example where it is not. In each of the examples I have > given it has been logical and straightforward. > > Think of paper — someone gives you a document to mark on and you hand it > back. Happens in the digital world, too. > > > > >>> Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. > >>> Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to > >>> make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just > >>> make your corrections to the document*before* you attach it and send it. > >> > >> Generally you would not be fixing a typo with an annotation. I think you > >> are missing some part of what is happening. > >> > > > > It was you who made the comparison of editing an attachment to editing > > an email body text. pdf and word processor documents are common types > > of attachment. Why is your workflow good for annotations and drawings > > but not for text editing of the attachment? > > If you have tools for that I guess? But you are again going to other types > of documents. > > > >>> That's the normal workflow. > >> > >> It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit > >> an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example. > >> > > > > And if the PDF is your resume? > > This workflow of yours is only appropriate for throwaway documents. > > The image I sent to show I can recognize someone, sure, no need to keep it. > The recipe or lesson plan or perhaps even the showing of what widget to > click very well might be kept. > > But at least the tools I have work best for fairly simple annotations done > quickly as a fast reply, sure. > > If I get a paper from a student I open it in a word processor to mark it, > then send that back. If I had some type of round trip editing I might use > that. See: I noted specific examples of Stupid Marek flat out making things up -- trolling multiple groups, etc. His response: to double down on your lies. Which regular knows JavaScript, is an avid scripter, has hacked Ant's account, has motive and is a gigantic whining mama's boy who, when he is called out, posts ignorant claptrap even when he's _not_ flooding... AND... who struggles to blame everything he is doing on "others" and has for his whole life? They suggest looking for a suggestion for a Linux application is attacking. I bet he thinks his life was rough. -- Live on Kickstarter http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z9b0803ga.uo3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449161 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/25/18, 8:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> But the "task" is trivial... I am sure with any such additions >>>>>>>>>> you could do it with your eyes closed (well, proverbially anyway!) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you see why the integrated editing makes the workflow more "streamlined"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really. The need for such a feature would be rare, and as I >>>>>>>> said before, it's an out-of-order workflow. >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole "reply, edit there, send" is how it works with text... why is >>>>>> it out of order when done with images and PDFs? >>>>>> >>>> Because you're talking about attached files that you are sharing. >>> >>> Right: and they may very well be shared with question... which button do >>> I press, where is X in this image, which is your favorite whatever, etc. >>> >>>> If you edit the file after attaching it, you're not sharing the >>>> same file that you originally attached. >>> >>> I think sending the same file back, with no edits, would be more rare >>> than sending an edited one back. Unless the first person later loses the >>> file what is the point? >>> >> >> Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? > > In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the > examples talked about. > The *edited* file. >> >> >>>> You cannot even reliably >>>> discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since >>>> you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment >>>> for reference. >>> >>> Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed. >>> >> >> Did you not see where I wrote "outside of the email"? >> Email threads are a poor approach to file management. >> "Oh, *that* file... Let me dig around in my 12 gig gmail >> archive and see if I can find it. What was the subject >> of the thread again?" > > You can save the files elsewhere if you need (drag and drop or right click > and hit save, but this is going off topic). > But you made the point that your workflow was more "streamlined" because you did *not* save the file. >>>> At any rate you made a big deal about not having >>>> to save a copy of the file. >>> >>> I am noting the workflow is easier... but go out of my way to repeatedly >>> note the work would not be hard on Linux (or Windows) which lacks this >>> feature (as far as I know). >>> >> >> The workflow is not "easier." It is both illogical and careless. > > How so? You saw an example where it is not. In each of the examples I have > given it has been logical and straightforward. > > Think of paper — someone gives you a document to mark on and you hand it > back. Happens in the digital world, too. > What happens in the real and digital worlds is that you make changes and *then* hand it back. In that order. You don't start sending it back and make your changes in the middle of the send process. >> >>>> Say it's a resume, and you make a typo correction in the attachment. >>>> Then, next time you want to send your resume, you have to remember to >>>> make that correction first... or you do like everybody else and just >>>> make your corrections to the document*before* you attach it and send it. >>> >>> Generally you would not be fixing a typo with an annotation. I think you >>> are missing some part of what is happening. >>> >> >> It was you who made the comparison of editing an attachment to editing >> an email body text. pdf and word processor documents are common types >> of attachment. Why is your workflow good for annotations and drawings >> but not for text editing of the attachment? > > If you have tools for that I guess? But you are again going to other types > of documents. >> It's a workflow, remember? It should apply across the board. >>>> That's the normal workflow. >>> >>> It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit >>> an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example. >>> >> >> And if the PDF is your resume? >> This workflow of yours is only appropriate for throwaway documents. > > The image I sent to show I can recognize someone, sure, no need to keep it. > The recipe or lesson plan or perhaps even the showing of what widget to > click very well might be kept. > Wait, you're keeping the recipe now? You're saving it? What about the streamlined workflow? > But at least the tools I have work best for fairly simple annotations done > quickly as a fast reply, sure. > It's a gimmick, nothing more. Definitely not a workflow improvement. > If I get a paper from a student I open it in a word processor to mark it, > then send that back. If I had some type of round trip editing I might use > that. > And you wouldn't keep a copy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fke9bsFdembU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449177 |
On 4/26/18, 7:52 AM, owl wrote:
...
>>> Who said anything about sending an unedited file back?
>>
>> In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the
>> examples talked about.
>
> The *edited* file.
Right: you hit reply, edit the message with adding text to the text area
and annotations to the image and then send.
No need to save it to the desktop (or wherever), open, edit, save, and
then attach.
>>>>> You cannot even reliably
>>>>> discuss the file afterward, outside of the email program, since
>>>>> you apparently don't maintain a copy of the edited attachment
>>>>> for reference.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you do -- in their email! That file is not changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you not see where I wrote "outside of the email"?
>>> Email threads are a poor approach to file management.
>>> "Oh, *that* file... Let me dig around in my 12 gig gmail
>>> archive and see if I can find it. What was the subject
>>> of the thread again?"
>>
>> You can save the files elsewhere if you need (drag and drop or right click
>> and hit save, but this is going off topic).
>>
>
> But you made the point that your workflow was more "streamlined"
> because you did *not* save the file.
Right... there is no user action to save. Of course when you create a
new email a new file (a copy of the original) is saved (just as the
whole new email is) and when you annotate those changes are saved in
that email.
I think you are getting very pedantic here. It is explained well here:
<https://youtu.be/J1yjDS6cles>
...
>> If you have tools for that I guess? But you are again going to other types
>> of documents.
>>>
>
> It's a workflow, remember? It should apply across the board.
Why not use the best workflow for the type work you are doing?
This goes back to my preference for choice and flexibility... it is not
that what I am noting stops me from doing what you would do on Linux or
Windows, it just gives me more choice and I use those choices when they
make sense. So do many others.
>>>>> That's the normal workflow.
>>>>
>>>> It is completely "normal" to have a workflow where you respond and edit
>>>> an image or PDF -- if appropriate, at least. And I showed an example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And if the PDF is your resume?
>>> This workflow of yours is only appropriate for throwaway documents.
>>
>> The image I sent to show I can recognize someone, sure, no need to keep it.
>> The recipe or lesson plan or perhaps even the showing of what widget to
>> click very well might be kept.
>
> Wait, you're keeping the recipe now? You're saving it? What about
> the streamlined workflow?
What about it? Sure I can save the annotated file (not just in the email
but, say, in my recipe folder). Just right click on it and select to
Save or Save to Documents folder (or drag where you want).
>> But at least the tools I have work best for fairly simple annotations done
>> quickly as a fast reply, sure.
>
> It's a gimmick, nothing more. Definitely not a workflow improvement.
Of course it is an improvement. Heck, the fact it is an improvement is
why I use it. And I do use it quite often... and you have a video
showing the benefit in effort done by me.
At this point, no offense, seems you are arguing just to argue. You have
been shown the workflow and been shown the benefits. You have been told
that the benefit is of value and used in the real world (but also had it
emphasized that not having it is not the end of the world).
You do not see it. Not sure what else there is to say. You disagree. OK.
I am not going to get worked up about it.
>> If I get a paper from a student I open it in a word processor to mark it,
>> then send that back. If I had some type of round trip editing I might use
>> that.
>
> And you wouldn't keep a copy?
At least for the semester I would (and generally a while longer, until
past the time students can refute grades).
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9160aa9-9ea5-42f0-940f-dd50c62f8b6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449180 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:25:51 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 7:52 AM, owl wrote: > ... > >>> Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? > >> > >> In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the > >> examples talked about. > > > > The *edited* file. > > Right: you hit reply, edit the message with adding text to the text area > and annotations to the image and then send. I thought he might be trolling you over this... but apparently not. I didn't realize you were advocating the editing of text (as opposed to annotation) of an attached doc as part of a workflow. Ever heard of document control?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkedolFeerdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449182 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:25:51 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/26/18, 7:52 AM, owl wrote: >> ... >>>>> Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? >>>> >>>> In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the >>>> examples talked about. >>> >>> The *edited* file. >> >> Right: you hit reply, edit the message with adding text to the text area >> and annotations to the image and then send. > > I thought he might be trolling you over this... but apparently not. I didn't > realize you were advocating the editing of text (as opposed to annotation) > of an attached doc as part of a workflow. Ever heard of document control? > I meant edit the text of the email, not (say) a word processing file with a 10 page report. Or even a flyer (other perhaps to comment on it so the original person could make edits).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1c77c4c-9183-4fea-b64b-830df6ab417e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449185 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:40:55 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:25:51 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/26/18, 7:52 AM, owl wrote: > >> ... > >>>>> Who said anything about sending an unedited file back? > >>>> > >>>> In the example given the edited file went back to the sender. In all the > >>>> examples talked about. > >>> > >>> The *edited* file. > >> > >> Right: you hit reply, edit the message with adding text to the text area > >> and annotations to the image and then send. > > > > I thought he might be trolling you over this... but apparently not. I didn't > > realize you were advocating the editing of text (as opposed to annotation) > > of an attached doc as part of a workflow. Ever heard of document control? > > > > I meant edit the text of the email, not (say) a word processing file with a > 10 page report. Or even a flyer (other perhaps to comment on it so the > original person could make edits). So you understand his point about doc control?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web