From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: Bug#139792: emacs21: Press PageDown, get infinite loop Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:11:07 +0300 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <9735-Tue16Apr2002171107+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <5573-Tue16Apr2002151417+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018966685 23531 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2002 14:18:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16xTmX-00067Q-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:18:05 +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 16xTmd-0001Da-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:18:11 -0400 Original-Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.17]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16xTlr-0001Cb-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:17:23 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-217-205.inter.net.il [213.8.217.205]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id BHX53058; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:17:19 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: David.Kastrup@t-online.de X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: (David.Kastrup@t-online.de) 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:712 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:712 > From: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) > Date: 16 Apr 2002 14:39:29 +0200 > > > > For somone that already cried "foul!" > > > > I did? > > You defended someone who did. No, I argued with the message you posted in response to that.