Re: What's your favourite *under_publicized* editing feature ofEmacs?

[Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au>]

On 27/02/2011 12:28 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2011-02-27, Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2011 10:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Last time I looked, revision control did not concern itself with builds
>>> or library dependencies or bug reports or feature requests.
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
> You're confusing X with X

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, combined 
with a classic contradiction, have to do with Lisp, Bradfield?

>>> Uh, you already forgot what I wrote about the various versions of
>>> articles
>>
>> No, it's simply not relevant. Articles are typically written, revised,
>> and eventually *finished*.
>
> Have you ever actually written an academic article?

What does your question have to do with Lisp, Bradfield?

>> Articles are not typically published with "bugs" and then later
>> republished without them. Typical articles are published once and then
>> that's it.
>
> You're not an academic, are you?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Lisp, 
Bradfield?

>>> Gross.  You are not confusing word processing on a computer with
>>> handwritten manuscripts by chance?
>
> As David says, gross. What is "strikethru" anyway?

You're not a writer, are you, Bradfield?

>> Of course not. You on the other hand seem to be confusing word
>> processing with software development!
>
> Only those who don't know any better use word processors

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do 
with Lisp, Bradfield? One wonders what you think word processors are for 
and what explanation you'd proffer for the fact that they are one of the 
more lucrative categories of software out there, Bradfield.