On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:34:18PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:34:12AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > The names are definitely cryptic, which is the whole point of asking > > > for a way to get them from mutt... Mutt knows what the names are. > > > However I would disagree that knowing the name is not useful. It is > > > > Picky. Picky. > > Yeah, that is why I said "... not generally useful." > > But they are. generally. useful. I use them all the time, and I
You're twisting words. > gave you some general examples of how they are useful, generally. > I've no doubt there are more (some of which were mentioned elsewhere > in this thread, I do believe). > > I remember saying something about "depending on what you're trying to > > do." but it appears to have been snipped. > > Actually, you didn't. The full text of what you wrote was this > (portions quoted from other people snipped): > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:19:48PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > The filenames are cryptic and knowing their name is not generally > > useful. What are you wanting to do that requires you to know the > > filename. Sorry for being nosy, just interested. :-) > > Feel free to check the archives if you feel I've misquoted you. Am I > picky? Me saying: "What are you wanting to do that requires you to know the filename." is not the same as "depending on what you're trying to do."? Duh! > Yes... but your reply sounds dismissive, as if what the OP was > asking was ludicrous or stupid, when actually it is perfectly Me saying "Sorry for being nosy, just interested. :-)" makes the OP sound "ludicrous or stupid"? What culture are you from? You need to lighten up my lad! > So, yeah, apparently I replied just to bust your balls, which I've > been being rather good about not doing lately. Ah I see, one of those! > Sorry. I just really > hate being contradicted by people who are completely wrong, and Completely wrong? You are a touchy one aren't you. > couldn't stop myself. You need to exercise nore self control -- Chris. ====== " ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness." Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.
