Dan Sugalski wrote: > > If the symbol becomes content-free, perhaps the problem is with what made > it useless, not with the symbol itself... Yes! -- John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line n... Damien Neil
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Damien Neil
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line n... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @% Jon Ericson
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... Russ Allbery
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Andy Wardley
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid ... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Jon Ericson
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Jon Ericson
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @% Russ Allbery
