From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:52:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83fwbxgh8d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1bqkr.13803$mL3.9455@newsfe23.iad> <5Yxkr.15011$bU5.6213@newsfe04.iad> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335027145 28368 80.91.229.3 (21 Apr 2012 16:52:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:25 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 21 18:52:24 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdXr-0003iE-M7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:52:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54542 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdXr-0003K1-3i for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58346) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdXm-0003Jk-6V for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdXk-0005Sq-EU for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:48604) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLdXk-0005Sm-6i for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M2U00H009IJVG00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:52:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.172.156]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M2U00HJD9IZIYE0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:52:12 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:84575 Archived-At: > From: Chiron > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:32:07 GMT > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:34:03 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> Well, I'm just going by the behavior of the current maintainers. > > > > What behavior? Facts, please. > > > The decision of the maintainers not to implement certain changes. Kindly > refer to earlier posts in this thread for more information. I asked on what behavior did _you_ decide that the maintainers behave as you say they do. > >> They aren't making the changes that people seem to want - at least not > >> the ones that might gather lots of users. > > > > Which changes? Facts, please! > > > Refer to earlier posts in this thread. There's nothing there to suggest that. What are _your_ facts, please? > > Without the facts to back this up, I would not consider this > > "conclusion" valid. > > It's not a "conclusion." It's an opinion. My opinion is based on what I > see, which is a very limited subset of what occurs. There is no > particular reason for you to accept this opinion. If you tell what are your opinions based on, we could try figuring out whether those opinions are justified or just misunderstandings. But as long as you evade any particulars, there's no sense in continuing this discussion, and there indeed is no reason at all for me to accept your opinion or even to consider it. > I think you have mistaken my comments for those of someone else. I did not. > It may be helpful to review the thread to see what I was originally > responding to. I already did that. > In case I have been unclear, I am not criticizing the current maintainers > of emacs. I am supporting their right to make or not make changes in > emacs, as they see fit. You are ascribing them motives and behavior that (1) don't exist, and (2) are derogatory to their role and the way they perform their duties. If that's not "criticizing", then I don't know what would be. > I feel that for some reason people are not understanding what I am > saying. They do.