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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkehdnFf95nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449188 |
On 4/26/18, 9:53 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > 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? I think so. Say you send me v1.0 of a document and I want to edit it and send back v1.1 then this would not be the best tool for the job. Of course, to do that we could use an online collaborative word processor... even one that ties into the desktop tools. But on the annotation tools built into Mail, they are not for that... they are for what I have described: sending back a couple comments on an image or PDF and, generally, in an informal way (not a graded paper or business proposal or the like). For me, I do not use it just for returning content (edited). Had someone a week or so ago email me asking where the tool in Photoshop was for doing gradients. It is tied to the "fill" tool, but instead of just telling them I copied a quick screenshot to the clipboard, pasted it in Mail, pointed to the widget (did it with a third party tool -- Skitch -- but same idea), and then sent the reply. Of course I *could* have done the editing in Preview or Skitch itself or whatever other tool I wanted and then copied and pasted in the reply email. Some variation of that is how it would be done on Linux or Windows (or could be done on macOS) and that is fine. I think you get it, but want to make clear to anyone else reading this I am NOT saying what I am describing is a needed tool and without it ... blah blah blah. Enough disclaimers. Still will have RonB or someone else insisting I am attacking Linux for not having this no matter what I say. :) -- 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 | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <677dff4a-c18c-4abf-a926-db483e419ae7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449191 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:43:23 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 9:53 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > 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? > > I think so. Say you send me v1.0 of a document and I want to edit it and > send back v1.1 then this would not be the best tool for the job. > > Of course, to do that we could use an online collaborative word > processor... even one that ties into the desktop tools. > > But on the annotation tools built into Mail, they are not for that... > they are for what I have described: sending back a couple comments on an > image or PDF and, generally, in an informal way (not a graded paper or > business proposal or the like). > > For me, I do not use it just for returning content (edited). Had someone > a week or so ago email me asking where the tool in Photoshop was for > doing gradients. It is tied to the "fill" tool, but instead of just > telling them I copied a quick screenshot to the clipboard, pasted it in > Mail, pointed to the widget (did it with a third party tool -- Skitch -- > but same idea), and then sent the reply. > > Of course I *could* have done the editing in Preview or Skitch itself or > whatever other tool I wanted and then copied and pasted in the reply > email. Some variation of that is how it would be done on Linux or > Windows (or could be done on macOS) and that is fine. I think you get > it, but want to make clear to anyone else reading this I am NOT saying > what I am describing is a needed tool and without it ... blah blah blah. > Enough disclaimers. Still will have RonB or someone else insisting I am > attacking Linux for not having this no matter what I say. :) > > -- > 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> Oh goodness, that is just tons of tripe. I have worked for the PC design business for more than 15 years. I've done business with top corporations selling to governments and the worlds largest companies. Never were we told to not offer any OS we wanted. We sold Linux, Mac, System V, and more with MS OSs on our hardware. The advocates insist asking for guidance for a Linux application is attacking. It was Jonathan Rhodes who forged me and bragged about it. Like the other trolls in this group, Jonathan Rhodes relies on false news to blindly inform positions on the news. As such, he only knows and agrees to the endorsed stories which also happens to be the ones which characterize education in an absurdly approving and righteous light. You saying something is so does not make it true. -- Get Rich Slow https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/RSikBcWxBLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglvCo3dJ38&feature=youtu.be Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5615e93a-fae2-4abd-8a6b-b30e0825c962@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449191 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:43:23 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 9:53 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > 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? > > I think so. Say you send me v1.0 of a document and I want to edit it and > send back v1.1 then this would not be the best tool for the job. > > Of course, to do that we could use an online collaborative word > processor... even one that ties into the desktop tools. Out of my wheelhouse. I'd just use git and github (they can be used for a lot more than coding). > But on the annotation tools built into Mail, they are not for that... > they are for what I have described: sending back a couple comments on an > image or PDF and, generally, in an informal way (not a graded paper or > business proposal or the like). > > For me, I do not use it just for returning content (edited). Had someone > a week or so ago email me asking where the tool in Photoshop was for > doing gradients. It is tied to the "fill" tool, but instead of just > telling them I copied a quick screenshot to the clipboard, pasted it in > Mail, pointed to the widget (did it with a third party tool -- Skitch -- > but same idea), and then sent the reply. > > Of course I *could* have done the editing in Preview or Skitch itself or > whatever other tool I wanted and then copied and pasted in the reply > email. Some variation of that is how it would be done on Linux or > Windows (or could be done on macOS) and that is fine. I think you get > it, but want to make clear to anyone else reading this I am NOT saying > what I am describing is a needed tool and without it ... blah blah blah. > Enough disclaimers. Still will have RonB or someone else insisting I am > attacking Linux for not having this no matter what I say. :) And you *never* troll him over it <eyeroll>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0032e56-fcde-4d4a-8b98-0b0d8dc70ae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449196 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:43:23 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 4/26/18, 9:53 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I think so. Say you send me v1.0 of a document and I want to edit it and > > send back v1.1 then this would not be the best tool for the job. > > > > Of course, to do that we could use an online collaborative word > > processor... even one that ties into the desktop tools. > > Out of my wheelhouse. I'd just use git and github > (they can be used for a lot more than coding). > > > But on the annotation tools built into Mail, they are not for that... > > they are for what I have described: sending back a couple comments on an > > image or PDF and, generally, in an informal way (not a graded paper or > > business proposal or the like). > > > > For me, I do not use it just for returning content (edited). Had someone > > a week or so ago email me asking where the tool in Photoshop was for > > doing gradients. It is tied to the "fill" tool, but instead of just > > telling them I copied a quick screenshot to the clipboard, pasted it in > > Mail, pointed to the widget (did it with a third party tool -- Skitch -- > > but same idea), and then sent the reply. > > > > Of course I *could* have done the editing in Preview or Skitch itself or > > whatever other tool I wanted and then copied and pasted in the reply > > email. Some variation of that is how it would be done on Linux or > > Windows (or could be done on macOS) and that is fine. I think you get > > it, but want to make clear to anyone else reading this I am NOT saying > > what I am describing is a needed tool and without it ... blah blah blah. > > Enough disclaimers. Still will have RonB or someone else insisting I am > > attacking Linux for not having this no matter what I say. :) > > And you *never* troll him over it <eyeroll>. I have known autobots who argue better than Jessica 'The Shill' Lane does. MuahMan has been here to deeply comprehend the depths of the guy's trolling. Gee, imagine Jessica 'The Shill' Lane trying to pin his gobbledegook on MuahMan, no one has ever seen that before <eyeroll>. Off Jessica 'The Shill' Lane goes to the housing in the teeming latrine of my rubbish bin. It was Jessica 'The Shill' Lane who flooded MuahMan's site hundreds of thousands of times and refused to admit it. - Curious how these posts are made? Email: fretwizzer@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkeohoFgt4mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449196 |
On 4/26/18, 11:22 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>>> 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? >> >> I think so. Say you send me v1.0 of a document and I want to edit it and >> send back v1.1 then this would not be the best tool for the job. >> >> Of course, to do that we could use an online collaborative word >> processor... even one that ties into the desktop tools. > > Out of my wheelhouse. I'd just use git and github > (they can be used for a lot more than coding). I use Word or Pages and Google Docs for that... their online tools are pretty good (from what I can see with my rather limited use of them). Even though it is likely the least popular of those, I have used Pages more than the other two. It certainly has its weaknesses, but is more than adequate for most of my needs. >> But on the annotation tools built into Mail, they are not for that... >> they are for what I have described: sending back a couple comments on an >> image or PDF and, generally, in an informal way (not a graded paper or >> business proposal or the like). >> >> For me, I do not use it just for returning content (edited). Had someone >> a week or so ago email me asking where the tool in Photoshop was for >> doing gradients. It is tied to the "fill" tool, but instead of just >> telling them I copied a quick screenshot to the clipboard, pasted it in >> Mail, pointed to the widget (did it with a third party tool -- Skitch -- >> but same idea), and then sent the reply. >> >> Of course I *could* have done the editing in Preview or Skitch itself or >> whatever other tool I wanted and then copied and pasted in the reply >> email. Some variation of that is how it would be done on Linux or >> Windows (or could be done on macOS) and that is fine. I think you get >> it, but want to make clear to anyone else reading this I am NOT saying >> what I am describing is a needed tool and without it ... blah blah blah. >> Enough disclaimers. Still will have RonB or someone else insisting I am >> attacking Linux for not having this no matter what I say. :) > > And you *never* troll him over it<eyeroll>. I respond to his trolling and, as I am here, reference it. He repeatedly will claim I am anti-choice or pushing people to use macOS or mocking people for making a choice other than the one I make or the like... as he does much the same. It is odd. Then he claims to not even read my posts. But that is going too much into focusing on people and meta-debate territory. I prefer looking at the tech (and in my case largely workflows and the tools to help people get work done efficiently or easily). This topic is pretty much been beaten to death... with, amazingly, a large level of agreement. Being able to annotate a PDF or image in a Mail client and elsewhere is a "nice" feature that certainly can be of value (and that value has been described) but, of course, is not required to do any given task. In COLA these things tend to get blown out of proportion. OK, Owl does not really see why the workflows using this have benefits, but was kind enough to show how he would do similar tasks (and while not as "streamlined" it is not like anyone put him or his system down for how he did it). Whatever. Chrisv and you are spewing name calling and insults over *something* tied to this even as you two seem to largely agree. Unless some new use or new question comes up (or perhaps if someone shows a misunderstanding of what has been covered) I think it is safe to say, for now, that the topic is covered. -- 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 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sz0b90.ba3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449180 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > 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. > That's where it stands. I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 15:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkf16nFipmnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449222 |
On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's where it stands.
OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
>
> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
attached. This seems more prone to error to me. Also curious if you can
drag and drop an image from an open folder (or the desktop). Here, just
made a very quick video showing me:
<https://youtu.be/EsKURJcZdYQ>
1) Drag an image in from the file browser (not shown, but I did test if
this would work from Safari and Chrome, and it did fine).
2) Do a quick resize (preset sizes)... this is editing too, though I
hardly think of it as that. I use this very often (in my photo
organizing app, select images, email, then resize them in Mail).
3) Used a third party tool to blur out a name
Then I send it.
Made this one before that where I show points two and three... so the
tech is the same but I discuss a more real-world example:
<https://youtu.be/NAwlYnx8NJs>
--
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 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p08fbz.laoylly@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449225 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> That's where it stands. > > OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing > tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! > > OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) > >> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >> >> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off > > Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be > attached. This seems more prone to error to me. You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember what you just did when editing the image. > Also curious if you can > drag and drop an image from an open folder (or the desktop). Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkf6vmFjtm4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449234 |
On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> That's where it stands. >> >> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >> >> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >> >>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>> >>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >> >> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. > > You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the > image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send > window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, > and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember > what you just did when editing the image. Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. >> Also curious if you can >> drag and drop an image from an open folder (or the desktop). > > Yes. Figured as much. -- 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 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s9z08b8rq.abuo4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449235 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's where it stands. >>> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >>> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >>> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>>> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >>> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >> what you just did when editing the image. > > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. > Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, five seconds after you have just edited it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f5883cf-bde7-4f68-803b-49be88afe56e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449236 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That's where it stands. > >>> > >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing > >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! > >>> > >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) > >>> > >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got > >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including > >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more > >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to > >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: > >>>> > >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off > >>> > >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be > >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. > >> > >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the > >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send > >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, > >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember > >> what you just did when editing the image. > > > > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. > > > > Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including > the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, > five seconds after you have just edited it? I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe exchange? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szb0z0b083.ab@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449237 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> That's where it stands. >> >>> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >> >>> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >> >>> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >> >>>> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >> >>> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >> >> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >> >> what you just did when editing the image. >> > >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. >> > >> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, >> five seconds after you have just edited it? > > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe > exchange? ;) Technical challenge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31b00013-f4a3-43c3-8f06-050ffd161ed4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449240 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: > >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 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. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> That's where it stands. > >> >>> > >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing > >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! > >> >>> > >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) > >> >>> > >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got > >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including > >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more > >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to > >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off > >> >>> > >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be > >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. > >> >> > >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the > >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send > >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, > >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember > >> >> what you just did when editing the image. > >> > > >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. > >> > > >> > >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including > >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, > >> five seconds after you have just edited it? > > > > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate > > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just > > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe > > exchange? ;) > > Technical challenge. What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 01:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8a0.ylashu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449242 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 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.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That's where it stands.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
>> >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
>> >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
>> >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
>> >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
>> >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
>> >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the
>> >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send
>> >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts,
>> >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember
>> >> >> what you just did when editing the image.
>> >> >
>> >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including
>> >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway,
>> >> five seconds after you have just edited it?
>> >
>> > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate
>> > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just
>> > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe
>> > exchange? ;)
>>
>> Technical challenge.
>
> What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
1) Add a script to the "Open With" dropdown that runs (among some other code):
display -write ${1} ${1}
Where ${1} has been passed to the script's argv[1] as "%s"
That causes display to overwrite the file it opens, so bypassing the
need to save. You can just hit <ESC> and 'q' to kill display, and
your edits get saved back to the file.
You have to click on the image link to get an "Open" that runs what
you have told it to remember in "Open With". Clicking on the image
itself and running "Open" also uses display by default, but no options
are passed. Also -- even though it doesn't matter, since more work needs
to be done by the script anyway with filename manipuation -- you cannot
simply call display with those options as an "Open With" selection,
because apparently you are not allowed to use the "%s" more than once.
So, I pass %s to a script that then uses ${1} twice.
(%s is the filename you are opening, and ${1} is bash's argv[1], so here
they are the same).
2) Edit the default reply template, adding:
|attach{/home/anon/.claws-mail/mimetmp/myattachment.png}
I'm still trying to figure a way to not have to use a
hardcoded filename (which is created by the script above),
but I don't see a variable available for use in the template
information list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f5fd904-8390-4542-bc6d-eb2a0fdb248e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449245 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:42:11 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote:
> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> 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.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> That's where it stands.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
> >> >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
> >> >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
> >> >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
> >> >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
> >> >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
> >> >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the
> >> >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send
> >> >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts,
> >> >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember
> >> >> >> what you just did when editing the image.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including
> >> >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway,
> >> >> five seconds after you have just edited it?
> >> >
> >> > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate
> >> > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just
> >> > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe
> >> > exchange? ;)
> >>
> >> Technical challenge.
> >
> > What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
>
> 1) Add a script to the "Open With" dropdown that runs (among some other code):
>
> display -write ${1} ${1}
>
> Where ${1} has been passed to the script's argv[1] as "%s"
>
> That causes display to overwrite the file it opens, so bypassing the
> need to save. You can just hit <ESC> and 'q' to kill display, and
> your edits get saved back to the file.
>
> You have to click on the image link to get an "Open" that runs what
> you have told it to remember in "Open With". Clicking on the image
> itself and running "Open" also uses display by default, but no options
> are passed. Also -- even though it doesn't matter, since more work needs
> to be done by the script anyway with filename manipuation -- you cannot
> simply call display with those options as an "Open With" selection,
> because apparently you are not allowed to use the "%s" more than once.
> So, I pass %s to a script that then uses ${1} twice.
>
> (%s is the filename you are opening, and ${1} is bash's argv[1], so here
> they are the same).
>
>
> 2) Edit the default reply template, adding:
>
> |attach{/home/anon/.claws-mail/mimetmp/myattachment.png}
>
> I'm still trying to figure a way to not have to use a
> hardcoded filename (which is created by the script above),
> but I don't see a variable available for use in the template
> information list.
Ya buddy! Now we're talking' tech!
I realize your in the zone on this and I don't want you to think I'm
overlooking your sh*t here but a potential sponsor just read this
post and he wants to back a video podcast series 'Talkin' Tech'.
He didn't have a problem with my handle but he claims single
syllable handles have no dignity, he wants a high syllable to letters
ratio so, for you, I'm thinkin': 'Invictus Maximus'
For Snit, with his love of cloves (or maybe it's lemons... lavender?)
and history of (ahem) well, you know... it's gotta be something like:
'Crackatoa KreTech'
While "chrisv" immediately got the hook, Feeb's position is still
up in the air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 02:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a9z0b0qw.w@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449247 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:42:11 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> 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.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> That's where it stands.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
>> >> >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
>> >> >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
>> >> >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
>> >> >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
>> >> >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
>> >> >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the
>> >> >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send
>> >> >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts,
>> >> >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember
>> >> >> >> what you just did when editing the image.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including
>> >> >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway,
>> >> >> five seconds after you have just edited it?
>> >> >
>> >> > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate
>> >> > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just
>> >> > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe
>> >> > exchange? ;)
>> >>
>> >> Technical challenge.
>> >
>> > What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
>>
>> 1) Add a script to the "Open With" dropdown that runs (among some other code):
>>
>> display -write ${1} ${1}
>>
>> Where ${1} has been passed to the script's argv[1] as "%s"
>>
>> That causes display to overwrite the file it opens, so bypassing the
>> need to save. You can just hit <ESC> and 'q' to kill display, and
>> your edits get saved back to the file.
>>
>> You have to click on the image link to get an "Open" that runs what
>> you have told it to remember in "Open With". Clicking on the image
>> itself and running "Open" also uses display by default, but no options
>> are passed. Also -- even though it doesn't matter, since more work needs
>> to be done by the script anyway with filename manipuation -- you cannot
>> simply call display with those options as an "Open With" selection,
>> because apparently you are not allowed to use the "%s" more than once.
>> So, I pass %s to a script that then uses ${1} twice.
>>
>> (%s is the filename you are opening, and ${1} is bash's argv[1], so here
>> they are the same).
>>
>>
>> 2) Edit the default reply template, adding:
>>
>> |attach{/home/anon/.claws-mail/mimetmp/myattachment.png}
>>
>> I'm still trying to figure a way to not have to use a
>> hardcoded filename (which is created by the script above),
>> but I don't see a variable available for use in the template
>> information list.
>
> Ya buddy! Now we're talking' tech!
>
> I realize your in the zone on this and I don't want you to think I'm
> overlooking your sh*t here but a potential sponsor just read this
> post and he wants to back a video podcast series 'Talkin' Tech'.
>
> He didn't have a problem with my handle but he claims single
> syllable handles have no dignity, he wants a high syllable to letters
> ratio so, for you, I'm thinkin': 'Invictus Maximus'
>
Well, you know I used to post occasionally as Octavian W. LaGrange.
> For Snit, with his love of cloves (or maybe it's lemons... lavender?)
> and history of (ahem) well, you know... it's gotta be something like:
> 'Crackatoa KreTech'
>
> While "chrisv" immediately got the hook, Feeb's position is still
> up in the air.
>
Fabtard the Magnificent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6fb854f-3092-402d-bacf-6beaef9dfbe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449248 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 8:17:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:42:11 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> 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.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> That's where it stands.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
> >> >> >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
> >> >> >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
> >> >> >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
> >> >> >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
> >> >> >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
> >> >> >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the
> >> >> >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send
> >> >> >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts,
> >> >> >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember
> >> >> >> >> what you just did when editing the image.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including
> >> >> >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway,
> >> >> >> five seconds after you have just edited it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate
> >> >> > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just
> >> >> > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe
> >> >> > exchange? ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> Technical challenge.
> >> >
> >> > What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
> >>
> >> 1) Add a script to the "Open With" dropdown that runs (among some other code):
> >>
> >> display -write ${1} ${1}
> >>
> >> Where ${1} has been passed to the script's argv[1] as "%s"
> >>
> >> That causes display to overwrite the file it opens, so bypassing the
> >> need to save. You can just hit <ESC> and 'q' to kill display, and
> >> your edits get saved back to the file.
> >>
> >> You have to click on the image link to get an "Open" that runs what
> >> you have told it to remember in "Open With". Clicking on the image
> >> itself and running "Open" also uses display by default, but no options
> >> are passed. Also -- even though it doesn't matter, since more work needs
> >> to be done by the script anyway with filename manipuation -- you cannot
> >> simply call display with those options as an "Open With" selection,
> >> because apparently you are not allowed to use the "%s" more than once.
> >> So, I pass %s to a script that then uses ${1} twice.
> >>
> >> (%s is the filename you are opening, and ${1} is bash's argv[1], so here
> >> they are the same).
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) Edit the default reply template, adding:
> >>
> >> |attach{/home/anon/.claws-mail/mimetmp/myattachment.png}
> >>
> >> I'm still trying to figure a way to not have to use a
> >> hardcoded filename (which is created by the script above),
> >> but I don't see a variable available for use in the template
> >> information list.
> >
> > Ya buddy! Now we're talking' tech!
> >
> > I realize your in the zone on this and I don't want you to think I'm
> > overlooking your sh*t here but a potential sponsor just read this
> > post and he wants to back a video podcast series 'Talkin' Tech'.
> >
> > He didn't have a problem with my handle but he claims single
> > syllable handles have no dignity, he wants a high syllable to letters
> > ratio so, for you, I'm thinkin': 'Invictus Maximus'
> >
>
> Well, you know I used to post occasionally as Octavian W. LaGrange.
Done!
> > For Snit, with his love of cloves (or maybe it's lemons... lavender?)
> > and history of (ahem) well, you know... it's gotta be something like:
> > 'Crackatoa KreTech'
> >
> > While "chrisv" immediately got the hook, Feeb's position is still
> > up in the air.
> >
>
> Fabtard the Magnificent
And Fabtard-in-a-box on weekends ;)
To Snit: A lot of things are open for negotiation but he seemed adamant
on 'Crackatoa' (I really think he'll like that name) doing a PDFOTW segment.
You'll be pictured against an Indonesian backdrop drinking covfefe, your
Apple Pen precariously perched over some MarkUp item as you try to steady
yourself for the upcoming orgasmic delight of your first paid annotation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 02:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9a088zba.aoug3aw@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449249 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 8:17:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:42:11 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:58:58 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
>> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> 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.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> That's where it stands.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing
>> >> >> >> >>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL!
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :)
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got
>> >> >> >> >>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including
>> >> >> >> >>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more
>> >> >> >> >>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to
>> >> >> >> >>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be
>> >> >> >> >>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the
>> >> >> >> >> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send
>> >> >> >> >> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts,
>> >> >> >> >> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember
>> >> >> >> >> what you just did when editing the image.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why is that not as easy? You get to "scan the whole message, including
>> >> >> >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway,
>> >> >> >> five seconds after you have just edited it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I got a better question: Why are you spending time trying to replicate
>> >> >> > functionality that butts the head of your "workflow" principles? Just
>> >> >> > to see if you can or do you actually plan on using it for that next recipe
>> >> >> > exchange? ;)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Technical challenge.
>> >> >
>> >> > What did you have to do to get where you are now (I saw the screencasts)?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Add a script to the "Open With" dropdown that runs (among some other code):
>> >>
>> >> display -write ${1} ${1}
>> >>
>> >> Where ${1} has been passed to the script's argv[1] as "%s"
>> >>
>> >> That causes display to overwrite the file it opens, so bypassing the
>> >> need to save. You can just hit <ESC> and 'q' to kill display, and
>> >> your edits get saved back to the file.
>> >>
>> >> You have to click on the image link to get an "Open" that runs what
>> >> you have told it to remember in "Open With". Clicking on the image
>> >> itself and running "Open" also uses display by default, but no options
>> >> are passed. Also -- even though it doesn't matter, since more work needs
>> >> to be done by the script anyway with filename manipuation -- you cannot
>> >> simply call display with those options as an "Open With" selection,
>> >> because apparently you are not allowed to use the "%s" more than once.
>> >> So, I pass %s to a script that then uses ${1} twice.
>> >>
>> >> (%s is the filename you are opening, and ${1} is bash's argv[1], so here
>> >> they are the same).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2) Edit the default reply template, adding:
>> >>
>> >> |attach{/home/anon/.claws-mail/mimetmp/myattachment.png}
>> >>
>> >> I'm still trying to figure a way to not have to use a
>> >> hardcoded filename (which is created by the script above),
>> >> but I don't see a variable available for use in the template
>> >> information list.
>> >
>> > Ya buddy! Now we're talking' tech!
>> >
>> > I realize your in the zone on this and I don't want you to think I'm
>> > overlooking your sh*t here but a potential sponsor just read this
>> > post and he wants to back a video podcast series 'Talkin' Tech'.
>> >
>> > He didn't have a problem with my handle but he claims single
>> > syllable handles have no dignity, he wants a high syllable to letters
>> > ratio so, for you, I'm thinkin': 'Invictus Maximus'
>> >
>>
>> Well, you know I used to post occasionally as Octavian W. LaGrange.
>
> Done!
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euZm1TfO9xY
>> > For Snit, with his love of cloves (or maybe it's lemons... lavender?)
>> > and history of (ahem) well, you know... it's gotta be something like:
>> > 'Crackatoa KreTech'
>> >
>> > While "chrisv" immediately got the hook, Feeb's position is still
>> > up in the air.
>> >
>>
>> Fabtard the Magnificent
>
> And Fabtard-in-a-box on weekends ;)
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4VKpRNiYIM
> To Snit: A lot of things are open for negotiation but he seemed adamant
> on 'Crackatoa' (I really think he'll like that name) doing a PDFOTW segment.
> You'll be pictured against an Indonesian backdrop drinking covfefe, your
> Apple Pen precariously perched over some MarkUp item as you try to steady
> yourself for the upcoming orgasmic delight of your first paid annotation.
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNahS3OHPwA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 20:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkfle9Fmku5U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449249 |
On 4/26/18 7:23 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> I realize your in the zone on this and I don't want you to think I'm >>> overlooking your sh*t here but a potential sponsor just read this >>> post and he wants to back a video podcast series 'Talkin' Tech'. >>> >>> He didn't have a problem with my handle but he claims single >>> syllable handles have no dignity, he wants a high syllable to letters >>> ratio so, for you, I'm thinkin': 'Invictus Maximus' >>> >> Well, you know I used to post occasionally as Octavian W. LaGrange. > Done! > >>> For Snit, with his love of cloves (or maybe it's lemons... lavender?) >>> and history of (ahem) well, you know... it's gotta be something like: >>> 'Crackatoa KreTech' >>> >>> While "chrisv" immediately got the hook, Feeb's position is still >>> up in the air. >>> >> Fabtard the Magnificent > And Fabtard-in-a-box on weekends ;) > > To Snit: A lot of things are open for negotiation but he seemed adamant > on 'Crackatoa' (I really think he'll like that name) doing a PDFOTW segment. Nope. I insist on Brock McNuggets. > You'll be pictured against an Indonesian backdrop drinking covfefe, your > Apple Pen precariously perched over some MarkUp item as you try to steady > yourself for the upcoming orgasmic delight of your first paid annotation. > > -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkf8p1Fk8uaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449236 |
On 4/26/18 4:58 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's where it stands. >>>> >>>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >>>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >>>> >>>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >>>> >>>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>>>> >>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >>>> >>>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >>>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >>> >>> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >>> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >>> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >>> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >>> what you just did when editing the image. >> >> Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. > > Why is that not as easy? The answer "because you cannot scan what you cannot see" seems too easy. Maybe there is a miscommunication somewhere? > You get to "scan the whole message, including > the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, > five seconds after you have just edited it? Why just five seconds and why not scan the image then to make sure it is what you want? Maybe there is some complexity or assumption in your question I am not getting? -- 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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web