From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: configure script Date: 13 Jun 2002 21:42:19 +0200 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87bsaf3qzo.fsf@lgh163a.kemisten.nu> References: <61D0BADD.74BBFB3A.B8B383E9@netscape.net> <200206081915.g58JFT128804@aztec.santafe.edu> <538dgukrilgffka0tdkddf7hdph4i9b5va@4ax.com> <87fzzs6wgp.fsf@lgh163a.kemisten.nu> <87u1o85cj1.fsf@lgh163a.kemisten.nu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1024007024 3803 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2002 22:23:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:23:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gnu-emacs-bug@prep.ai.mit.edu Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Id0K-0000zE-00 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:23:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IcAk-0007E8-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:30:26 -0400 Original-Received: from lgh163a.kemisten.nu ([212.32.172.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IaU9-0001vy-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:42:22 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by lgh163a.kemisten.nu with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17IaU7-0000rs-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:42:19 +0200 Original-To: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:2016 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:2016 * David Kastrup writes: > I would have referred you to the "letters by readers" section of the > just appeared Linux Weekly News, where we had this exchange. Alas, it > seems that the editors have chosen to cut the published part of the > exchange off before RMS clarified those points. While he clearly > intended the material to be fit for publishing at least in that forum, > I would not want to publicly post it elsewhere before asking his > permission. And this exactly why the whole discussion is really pointless. Everything is based on what you claim that RMS said, what you think he said, or what you think he will say. So unless RMS will want to waste his time on this, the discussion is moot. Cheers, -- Alfred M. Szmidt