From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: EmacsW32 invocation options Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:23:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: <59osrdF2m97hgU1@mid.individual.net> <87ejlzjv27.fsf@gmail.com> <4638A094.8090708@gmail.com> <4638A852.3010004@gmail.com> <4638B13B.5050807@gmail.com> <4638F18B.7090703@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178137434 6413 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2007 20:23:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Hadron To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 02 22:23:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HjLMa-0004hg-Qs for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 22:23:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjLT2-0001iw-3m for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:30:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjLSo-0001WU-0F for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:30:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjLSn-0001T5-7a for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjLSn-0001SX-3B for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HjLMK-0004mt-Vv for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:23:33 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i23so287084wra for ; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tRD+oEhEkAunuJGRux/MnwLxu2jUHVYHLxx4MZvp3SxtjLI2mOfZLkSkcNV2eACm9VEOMVYOk6lonOD9aMXGxkh9rTMDUjK53fLUvE39SYt0r3JZ8zfe4VQyj1WAkfBAlqBuE/GZ/TWYWtegDIC/SijPHFuYcrPtM11daigtYfE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TRYp9oMe2IE7f83WzqIAXxZOuBY/fkmgZfPmCoQwNTo5PxRIWmYdDc4dsX7qtcYaceJBlF3AGRv9LV1xHDAIHO9uxBqgHYdc24WWDY1i+UT9WiRuHOEwIWCJcW8OgX6o8tg4QKBLO4BadwHjKZYYmaH1KcC4k8ablFNtY9q6N8E= Original-Received: by 10.90.49.19 with SMTP id w19mr1132161agw.1178137412434; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.87.8 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4638F18B.7090703@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43531 Archived-At: On 5/2/07, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > Juanma Barranquero wrote: > And so is sound reasoning without personal attachs. Rest assured I haven't attacked you. You think that explaining the feeling I get from your webpage is an attack. It's not. I cannot read your mind, but I have no trouble whatsoever reading mine. I think that saying that the Emacs developers did not take the time to discuss rationally or in deep what you wanted to do, or asking again and again to people who disagrees with you whether they have read your webpages, or messages in a discussion thread, instead of assuming that they *have* read it and just *do* disagree... that seems like a personal attack to me, yes. Juanma