At 05:53 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: >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"? ;-) D'oh! (or is that now D::oh?) I meant _useful_ and distinguishing. Really I did... Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- 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
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ri... Nathan Wiger