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 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szb08b0z.arfa3i@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449027 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fk99pgF9pcnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449028 |
On 4/24/18, 10:25 AM, owl wrote: >>> 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. For some tasks, sure. But, AGAIN, does not mean you cannot do the same thing on Linux. Here are some ways I showed: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0> Would love to see how you would do a similar task. -- 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 | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iqsuddt3v25b7tg5ikvj5uu09gt9ruo0ul@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449028 |
owl wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> 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, Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only way to alter a document was within an email program. >> it's just there if you need it. Yeah, we "get" that it's a "nice feature", "Steve". >Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. Using Macs has made them stupid. -- "I mean how can Linux on the desktop be a 'professional OS' when there are few, if any professional level applications for it?" - Lying Lloyd Parsons
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fk9au4Fa1m7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449038 |
On 4/24/18, 11:19 AM, chrisv wrote: > owl wrote: > >> Steve Carroll wrote: >>> >>> 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, > > Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > way to alter a document was within an email program. Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. >>> it's just there if you need it. > > Yeah, we "get" that it's a "nice feature", "Steve". > >> Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow. > > Using Macs has made them stupid. I do not understand the need to lash out... shows insecurity with your own choices. I say use what you like. -- 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 | 2018-04-24 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fc01ac7-3b5e-4198-832e-6914e9c02f7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449039 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/24/18, 11:19 AM, chrisv wrote: > > owl wrote: > > > >> Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> > >>> 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, > > > > Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > > way to alter a document was within an email program. > > Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. Leave it to 'chrisv' to fall off that lilly pad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fk9hp5Fbjg7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449045 |
On 4/24/18, 11:51 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/24/18, 11:19 AM, chrisv wrote: >>> owl wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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, >>> >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. >> >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > > What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. Leave it to > 'chrisv' to fall off that lilly pad. > I *can* see where it might be an issue if you have, say, a toolbar with a bunch of options. This adds visual clutter and can make things harder. It is why it is good to have the tools there as you need them... why I prefer being able to right click on text in almost any program and be able to do a Google search or definition search or the like (with things I add) instead of what Owl does where he adds icons to his main palette. -- 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 | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 07:23 -0500 |
| Subject | "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <sef3edhdcg01vuqs8eh5185ia68hbercrl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449045 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > "Snit" wrote: >> >> chrisv wrote: >>> >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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, >>> >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. >> >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it was a "nice feature", "Steve". Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? Did you just ASSume that "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been on USENET, "Steve"? What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? How could you read my postings for years, and think that I'm anywhere near as stupid as you, "Steve"? >Leave it to 'chrisv' to fall off that lilly pad. The only one who "fell of a lilly pad", here, is you, "Steve", you stupid jackasshole. Clue for you, "Steve": The next time you think that something is "bizarre and stupid", think again, because there's a good chance that it's your thought process. -- "Apple is put down when they support both closed source and open source software." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 06:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <6c16371e-f01a-47ed-b9cf-b8ddf714d94d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449171 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:24:01 AM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > "Snit" wrote: > >> > >> chrisv wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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, > >>> > >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. > >> > >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > > > >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. > > Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it > was a "nice feature", "Steve". > > Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? Did you just ASSume that > "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been > on USENET, "Steve"? > > What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance > and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? How could you read my > postings for years, and think that I'm anywhere near as stupid as you, > "Steve"? > > >Leave it to 'chrisv' to fall off that lilly pad. > > The only one who "fell of a lilly pad", here, is you, "Steve", you > stupid jackasshole. > > Clue for you, "Steve": The next time you think that something is > "bizarre and stupid", think again, because there's a good chance that > it's your thought process. > > -- > "Apple is put down when they support both closed source and open > source software." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can > quote it lying) Utter phooey by a delusional, lying, scheming, tag-teaming laughingstock who couldn't tell the truth even if he swore on his mother's grave. The majority of people in this group do programming either as a necessity or as a part of their job, so I think it unlikely more than a few think of writing macros to be "voodoo". Another successful Linux test. That is if you count slow and buggy as a success. Vennie Bowden failed to give a single time of a successful job creator that has made its wealth by not giving a damn about its clients or products. It was Vennie Bowden who stated that he and his students used to forge people all the time and it was free entertainment. Vennie Bowden and Staci Elliot both lie constantly and flagrantly and continue to do so. So no incentive in showing any further kindness or restraint. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 07:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <dfb8f393-154c-4d8c-8a8f-555b22a53f6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449172 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:29:37 AM UTC-7, Steven Petruzzellis wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:24:01 AM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > "Snit" wrote: > > >> > > >> chrisv wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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, > > >>> > > >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > > >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. > > >> > > >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > > > > > >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > > >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > > >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. > > > > Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it > > was a "nice feature", "Steve". > > > > Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? Did you just ASSume that > > "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been > > on USENET, "Steve"? > > > > What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance > > and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? How could you read my > > postings for years, and think that I'm anywhere near as stupid as you, > > "Steve"? > > > > >Leave it to 'chrisv' to fall off that lilly pad. > > > > The only one who "fell of a lilly pad", here, is you, "Steve", you > > stupid jackasshole. > > > > Clue for you, "Steve": The next time you think that something is > > "bizarre and stupid", think again, because there's a good chance that > > it's your thought process. > > > > -- > > "Apple is put down when they support both closed source and open > > source software." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can > > quote it lying) > > > > Utter phooey by a delusional, lying, scheming, tag-teaming laughingstock who couldn't tell the truth even if he swore on his mother's grave. The majority of people in this group do programming either as a necessity or as a part of their job, so I think it unlikely more than a few think of writing macros to be "voodoo". Another successful Linux test. That is if you count slow and buggy as a success. > > Vennie Bowden failed to give a single time of a successful job creator that has made its wealth by not giving a damn about its clients or products. It was Vennie Bowden who stated that he and his students used to forge people all the time and it was free entertainment. > > Vennie Bowden and Staci Elliot both lie constantly and flagrantly and continue to do so. So no incentive in showing any further kindness or restraint. > > > > -- > "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" > Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered. Can emoticons be concatenated into a string with a logical connection to the "real" world; that is the question posed recently by those astonished at the fire-hose of nonsense from assorted google-posters and basement-dwelling ultra-cranks. The content is a bunch of bullshit. Only glue sniffing would lead to that. ed should understand Michael P. knows he is just lying! I think it is already over. ed doesn't know if there is a no-cost FOSS solution or not. I'm getting more posts hidden then show. I'm guessing the pea-brained Mac cultist is in its brain damage mode again. My killfiles have him/her/it completely shut out. No-one gets it, I barely understand it. -- E-commerce Simplified!! http://jeff-relf.me/Cola_Regs.HTM Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <f6da5156-ff67-4c70-854b-d288b55adaa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449171 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > "Snit" wrote: > >> > >> chrisv wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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, > >>> > >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. > >> > >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > > > >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. > > Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it > was a "nice feature", "Steve". Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? "As if *anyone* would claim that there's something wrong about annotating an attachment." - chrisv The obvious question: Should annotation *never* be done in an attachment? Sorta renders the "nice feature" useless if you can't, doesn't it, "chrisv"? IOW, pick a "fscking" side to the argument, "stupid". > Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? Did you not read mine, "chrisv"? "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). " > Did you just ASSume that > "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been > on USENET, "Steve"? Nah, I didn't do to you what you did to me. > What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance > and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? Said the"fscking idiot/asshole" hypocrite who 'stupidly' just attacked Mac users (over a "nice feature" he's arguing they should *never* use) with: "Using Macs has made them stupid." (snip more rabid mouth foaming)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <fkedolFeerdU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449181 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: >> Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> "Snit" wrote: >>>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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, >>>>> >>>>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only >>>>> way to alter a document was within an email program. >>>> >>>> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. >>> >>> What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having >>> things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a >>> workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. >> >> Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it >> was a "nice feature", "Steve". > > Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree > with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? > > "As if *anyone* would claim that there's something wrong about > annotating an attachment." - chrisv > > The obvious question: Should annotation *never* be done in an attachment? > > Sorta renders the "nice feature" useless if you can't, doesn't it, "chrisv"? > > IOW, pick a "fscking" side to the argument, "stupid". > >> Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? > > Did you not read mine, "chrisv"? > > "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). " > >> Did you just ASSume that >> "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been >> on USENET, "Steve"? > > Nah, I didn't do to you what you did to me. > >> What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance >> and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? > > Said the"fscking idiot/asshole" hypocrite who 'stupidly' just attacked Mac > users (over a "nice feature" he's arguing they should *never* use) with: > > "Using Macs has made them stupid." > > (snip more rabid mouth foaming) > > I thought the game told was coming to an end with you and I largely agreeing, but I see elsewhere that you disagree. Even that seems to be over a misunderstanding so maybe the world still is ending.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <fkeds9FefllU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449186 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: >>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>> >>>> "Snit" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only >>>>>> way to alter a document was within an email program. >>>>> >>>>> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. >>>> >>>> What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having >>>> things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a >>>> workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. >>> >>> Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it >>> was a "nice feature", "Steve". >> >> Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree >> with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? >> >> "As if *anyone* would claim that there's something wrong about >> annotating an attachment." - chrisv >> >> The obvious question: Should annotation *never* be done in an attachment? >> >> Sorta renders the "nice feature" useless if you can't, doesn't it, "chrisv"? >> >> IOW, pick a "fscking" side to the argument, "stupid". >> >>> Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? >> >> Did you not read mine, "chrisv"? >> >> "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). " >> >>> Did you just ASSume that >>> "Snit" quoted everything that I wrote, "Steve? How long have you been >>> on USENET, "Steve"? >> >> Nah, I didn't do to you what you did to me. >> >>> What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance >>> and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? >> >> Said the"fscking idiot/asshole" hypocrite who 'stupidly' just attacked Mac >> users (over a "nice feature" he's arguing they should *never* use) with: >> >> "Using Macs has made them stupid." >> >> (snip more rabid mouth foaming) >> >> > > I thought the game told was coming to an end with you and I largely > agreeing, but I see elsewhere that you disagree. Even that seems to be over > a misunderstanding so maybe the world still is ending. > > Sorry for weird typos / autocorrect errors there. In English: thought the WORLD was coming to an end. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 13:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <0514ed9lnr4e073r4i8neijc7f9tjvc73n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449181 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > chrisv wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > "Snit" wrote: >> >> >> >> chrisv wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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, >> >>> >> >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only >> >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. >> >> >> >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. >> > >> >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having >> >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a >> >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. >> >> Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it >> was a "nice feature", "Steve". > >Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree >with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? That's a very bizarre and stupid assumption, "Steve". Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so, "Steve". >"As if *anyone* would claim that there's something wrong about >annotating an attachment." - chrisv > >The obvious question: Should annotation *never* be done in an attachment? Errr... The meaning of my above quote is that no one would claim that there's something wrong about annotating an attachment. Learn how to read and think, you fscking imbecile. >Sorta renders the "nice feature" useless if you can't, doesn't it, "chrisv"? WTF are you talking about, you dumbshit? Of course you can use the feature. Sheesh! >IOW, pick a "fscking" side to the argument, "stupid". I have a right to chastise you for stating such *obviousness* (that it would be bad to be "reliant" on an out-of-step procedure), while acknowledging that it's a nice feature to have, "Steve". Get it now, you stupid prick? >> Did you not read my enitire post, "Steve"? > >Did you not read mine, "chrisv"? > >"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). " Yes, and I (mildly) ridiculed you for posting something that is so *obviously correct*, as if it was if dispute. It's annoying and insulting when it's implied that simple truths are not commonly understood. Get it now, you stupid prick? This is the reason I ridiculed you. Period. Can I make it any more clear? >> What kind of fscking idiot/asshole attacks someone out of ignorance >> and ASSumptions, like you did to me, "Steve"? > >Said the"fscking idiot/asshole" hypocrite who 'stupidly' just attacked Mac >users I attacked two trolling fsckwits who use Macs. >(over a "nice feature" he's arguing they should *never* use) with: OMG Really? THAT is what you concluded? Is that *really* plausible, "Steve"? Or is it more likely that you're a fscking *idiot* who, despite the clarity of my post, thought that I was on "both sides of the argument", and came to a really bizarre and stupid conclusion? Clue for you, "Steve": The next time you think that something is "bizarre and stupid", think again, because there's a good chance that it's your thought process. Maybe, next time, you should wait for someone to actually write something as *ridiculous* as "it's a nice feature, but should *never* be used" before going on the attack. Maybe, next time, you should ask for clarification, before you go on the attack. Stupid prick. >"Using Macs has made them stupid." That statement was in regard to your and Snit's missing of Owl's point, "Steve". i.e. Owl wasn't denying that it was a useful feature. He was denying that it made for a more "streamlined" workflow. Yes, you are BOTH too God-damned *stupid* to understand what is being argued. You BOTH take the opportunity to leap to bizarre and stupid conclusions, so that you can attack Fscking idiot(s). Peas in a pod, you two. -- "Peter admits viewing a YouTube video is too challenging for him! LOL! That is just priceless!" - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 11:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <6f2c18f7-8bdd-4336-8551-04a974823e22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449195 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > chrisv wrote: > >> > >> Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> > "Snit" wrote: > >> >> > >> >> chrisv wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 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, > >> >>> > >> >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > >> >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. > >> >> > >> >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > >> > > >> >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > >> >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > >> >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. > >> > >> Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it > >> was a "nice feature", "Steve". > > > >Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree > >with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? > > That's a very bizarre and stupid assumption, "Steve". LOL! Actually, that's just a simple observation. I'll break this down so even you can understand it (but don't get used to this). It's the "when" you use this feature that is owl's main issue. Agreed? You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" it's used. Notably, you just clarified that "when" for the reader: > Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so, "Steve". And I'm loving this because, regarding 'convenience, what you just stated about "when" is the essence of *my* position (look at my missing time sig example). Now go ask owl if he agrees with your latest position: "Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so", screw the workflow. You're obviously confused, "chrisv" ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 12:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <10ea1459-45a0-493a-9efe-20529f119e8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449200 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > chrisv wrote: > > >> > > >> Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> > > >> > "Snit" wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> chrisv wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> "Steve Carroll" wrote: > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> 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, > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Well, I should hope not, "Steve". It would be rather odd if the only > > >> >>> way to alter a document was within an email program. > > >> >> > > >> >> Right. If THAT was the case it would be bizarre and stupid. > > >> > > > >> >What's more "bizarre and stupid" is missing the point about having > > >> >things available (that you don't have to use) at various stages of a > > >> >workflow, thus providing increased flexibility to that flow. > > >> > > >> Who missed that *obvious* fscking point, "Steve"? I admitted that it > > >> was a "nice feature", "Steve". > > > > > >Your point can only be that it's the timing of its use that you disagree > > >with. Is there any proof my assertion here is correct? > > > > That's a very bizarre and stupid assumption, "Steve". > > LOL! Actually, that's just a simple observation. I'll break this down so even > you can understand it (but don't get used to this). > > It's the "when" you use this feature that is owl's main issue. Agreed? > > You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with > the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" > it's used. Notably, you just clarified that "when" for the reader: > > > Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so, "Steve". > > And I'm loving this because, regarding 'convenience, what you just stated > about "when" is the essence of *my* position (look at my missing time sig > example). Now go ask owl if he agrees with your latest position: > > "Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so", screw the workflow. > > You're obviously confused, "chrisv" ;) Where did you go to school? OS X is based on Linux. End of Story. Now that Rhonda January Bass realized how effective Lewis is at playing 'target' he sees this is not nearly as outta whack as it appeared. It does not matter because the name on a post does not matter, it's the content that counts. Too much glue for you, Gluey. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steven Petruzzellis, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 14:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <f694edl22tf8j1ntv089rt9h1vvkbe28c9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449200 |
Steve Carroll wrote: >You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with >the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" >it's used. Jeezez H. Check out the "logic", everyone! Simple deduction is that I have no "beef" with this, or any, "nice feature". No one does. It's not logical. Simple deduction is that "Steve" is a snit, making ridiculous assertions to attack. I gave "Steve" plenty of explanations (and a good spanking), in my previous post, which he mostly ignored. >And I'm loving this because ... "Steve" is a snittish asshole. "chrisv thinks it's a nice feature but should *never* be used!" Sheesh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 12:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <800aaa8f-06d4-4cf3-8ebc-b4645a42142a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449204 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:26:28 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > >You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with > >the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" > >it's used. > > Jeezez H. Check out the "logic", everyone! > > Simple deduction is that I have no "beef" with this, or any, "nice > feature". No one does. It's not logical. Right... no beef by you <eyeroll>, not even when you stated... "Using Macs has made them stupid" ... in response to owl's: "Yes, but his claim was that this is a more "streamlined" workflow." Hint: The beef owl has is about "when" the feature is used. Period. Regarding "when" the feature is used, *you* just wrote: "Nice features should be used, when it's convenient to do so" Note: No qualifiers regarding the workflow, just "when it's convenient". But keep talking about "logic", "chrisv" ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <b9b4ed535c0mfmtat2r2c12dltekh63enm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449209 |
Steve Carroll wrote: >chrisv wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> >You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with >> >the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" >> >it's used. >> >> Jeezez H. Check out the "logic", everyone! >> >> Simple deduction is that I have no "beef" with this, or any, "nice >> feature". No one does. It's not logical. > >Right... no beef by you <eyeroll>, not even when you stated... > > (snipped, unread) No reason to read your snittish garbage. Everyone can read what I posted. I called it a "nice feature" FFS! I raised *no* objection to it's use. Sheesh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 07:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <l556ed9oci2pbgop39scq30n65o6l6itbn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449214 |
chrisv wrote: >Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>chrisv wrote: >>> >>> Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>>You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with >>>>the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when" >>>>it's used. >>> >>> Jeezez H. Check out the "logic", everyone! >>> >>> Simple deduction is that I have no "beef" with this, or any, "nice >>> feature". No one does. It's not logical. >> >>Right... no beef by you <eyeroll> > >I called it a "nice feature" FFS! I raised *no* objection to it's >use. Also, in my first post to this thread, I chastised the "Snit" thing for asking "what is wrong about annotating an attachment", which I felt was a stupid, trolling question. In that first post, I made it *quite* clear that I didn't think that *anyone* would claim that there's "something wrong" about "annotating an attachment"! <9lhuddlo28tf4tdpkvg1eusua06nfu30v8@4ax.com> But despite the clarity of what I wrote, despite all of the explanations, despite the absurdity of his claims, "Steve", like a true snit, *insists* that he knows better than I, what I think, and what I have a "beef" with. I think it's a nice feature, but that it should *never* be used, you know! *I* will say when it's acceptable to use nice features! I'm as arrogant and as anti-freedom as that, you know! Sheesh. -- "Wow... Peter denies desktop Linux has double clicking. That is just AMAZING!" - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 07:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole |
| Message-ID | <fkgqo2Fah7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449270 |
On 4/27/18 5:45 AM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying the feature is "nice" so you obviously have no trouble with
>>>>> the feature itself... simple deduction indicates your beef must be "when"
>>>>> it's used.
>>>>
>>>> Jeezez H. Check out the "logic", everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Simple deduction is that I have no "beef" with this, or any, "nice
>>>> feature". No one does. It's not logical.
>>>
>>> Right... no beef by you <eyeroll>
>>
>> I called it a "nice feature" FFS! I raised *no* objection to it's
>> use.
>
> Also, in my first post to this thread, I chastised the "Snit" thing
> for asking "what is wrong about annotating an attachment", which I
> felt was a stupid, trolling question. In that first post, I made it
> *quite* clear that I didn't think that *anyone* would claim that
> there's "something wrong" about "annotating an attachment"!
>
> <9lhuddlo28tf4tdpkvg1eusua06nfu30v8@4ax.com>
Yet Owl has, repeatedly. Does not mean he thinks it is wrong to attach
an annotated document, but he repeatedly speaks of his perceived ills of
annotating the attachment itself:
Owl:
-----
That's a disorganized workflow if you ask me.
-----
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.
-----
the annotations should be completed *before* loading the email
client.
-----
The workflow is not "easier." It is both illogical and careless.
-----
> But despite the clarity of what I wrote, despite all of the
> explanations, despite the absurdity of his claims, "Steve", like a
> true snit, *insists* that he knows better than I, what I think, and
> what I have a "beef" with.
I do not know what you think, hence the reason I keep asking you to clarify.
When do you think it makes sense to use this feature?
> I think it's a nice feature, but that it should *never* be used, you
> know! *I* will say when it's acceptable to use nice features!
Great! Please do. I have been asking repeatedly and I do not believe I
have seen an answer other than something very vague like "when it makes
sense to". When does it make sense to you to annotate an attachment
(which is different than attaching an annotated document)?
> I'm as
> arrogant and as anti-freedom as that, you know!
>
> Sheesh.
What?
--
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]
Page 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web