On 2008-11-26, Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Sinister Midget <fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-11-26, Chris Ahlstrom <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>>
>>>> Notice how Hadron twists Jed's words? He turns
>>>>
>>>> "that's exactly /one/ of the intended use cases for both vi and emacs"
>>>>
>>>> into
>>>>
>>>> "that's the /only/ intended use case for both vi and emacs"
>>>>
>>>> Hadron tends to pare down complex thoughts into their most simple form --
>>>> while completely stripping them of their original meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Deliberate lying, or mental defect?
>>>
>>> A mental defect that makes him deliberately lie.
>>
>> or the opposite.
>>
>> Listen up dickheads : "intended use" implies it was one of the design
>> focuses. Otherwise was can say the "intended use" of gedit is to "edit a
>> text file".
>>
>> Get it?
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> Jeb was talking tosh and you know it.
>
> And, incidentally, emacs and vi both preceded config.sys and
> autoexec.bat.
...yeah, but not their Unix cousins.
Besides, if we're going to fixate on MS-DOS startup scripts then
we might as well acknowledge the original MS-DOS equivalent here which
oddly enough is very much like a LISP interpreter that masquerades as
a text editor... <chuckle>
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
