Dan Sugalski wrote: > > Tossing the worthless and confusing ones is good. Tossung the useless > and distinguishing ones is bad. Uh, which ones did you have in mind, by "useless and distinguishing"? ;-) -- John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ge... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let'... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise -... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... David Corbin
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noi... David Corbin
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ge... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let'... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise -... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ge... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Clayton Scott
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Kai Henningsen
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @% Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of... Karl Glazebrook