PJ wrote:
It's owrthless to read your entire comment here as everyone is forgetting two things, here... 1. COMMON SENSE 2. NOT EVERYONE WHO READS MANUALS OR MAN PAGES IS NECESSARILY LIMITED TO THE NARROW MINDBEND OF THE "INITIATED".
There are those who think those who bitch because they've not taken the time to understand "terms of art" (to borrow language from yet another of the many, many sub-varieties of English) that have been widely used in the community for decades, and seem to feel that their resulting confusion is obviously somebody else's fault and duty to fix, lack sense, common or otherwise. On this, I suspect we'll just have to disagree. (Though I will point out that in the above passage you've just told us that you admit to having forgotten common sense. Ordinarily I wouldn't stoop this low, but you've just spent much time telling us how much clearer, better, and comprehensible your brand of English is.))
Personally, I welcomed Ian's comments, as I believe he was the first to point out explicitly that language such as this is contextual, long-standing in the community in which it is used, and really not that confusing once you pay attention. (My apologies to anyone else who discussed this earlier; I found it difficult to read every message in this thread.)
BTW, it's hard for me, personally, to take seriously anyone who quotes in full, with no trimming, something which he dismisses as "worthless to read."
-- --Jon Radel j...@radel.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
