On 20 Nov 2007, at 12:29 PM, Chas. Owens wrote:
-snip-
People can do whatever they want, but there is always the question of
reasonableness.
-snip-
Can we all agree that we've officially gone past any semblance of
"reasonableness" by having had this thread continue after it has
already achieve
On Nov 19, 2007 9:13 PM, Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> Hey, if Randal can get upset by daft disclaimers, why can't someone else
> take offence at a long advertising sig?
snip
People can do whatever they want, but there is always the question of
reasonableness. Schwartz's sig is four
Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
From: "Omega -1911" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
many others that are *really* here to help on this list.
Sometimes the best help you can get is a slap and an explanation why
you got it. You might not li
From: "Omega -1911" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
> many others that are *really* here to help on this list.
Sometimes the best help you can get is a slap and an explanation why
you got it. You might not like it at the moment, but it
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Omega -1911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got a kick out of Randal's comment "I helped build this internet."
>
> QUESTION FOR RANDAL: What about the many other (million+ developers)
> on this island, Gilligan?
>
> And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank G
I got a kick out of Randal's comment "I helped build this internet."
QUESTION FOR RANDAL: What about the many other (million+ developers)
on this island, Gilligan?
And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
many others that are *really* here to help on this list. You ca
From: Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:09:50 -0500, Chas. Owens wrote:
> > Because of netiquette. It isn't just Schwartz who is offended by this
> > sort of thing, it is offensive to everyone who remembers the time
> > before Eternal September. It is also a good idea to co
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:09:50 -0500, Chas. Owens wrote:
> Because of netiquette. It isn't just Schwartz who is offended by this
> sort of thing, it is offensive to everyone who remembers the time
> before Eternal September. It is also a good idea to conform to
> netiquette because people are more
On Nov 14, 2007 12:59 PM, Omega -1911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --
>
> Oh hell, why doesn't *the great one* create a regex to remove
> contiguous lines that contain *certain* words on his end? Oh my fault,
> this list is his kingdom... Perl's excellent for text manipulation.
snip
Because of n
> --
Oh hell, why doesn't *the great one* create a regex to remove
contiguous lines that contain *certain* words on his end? Oh my fault,
this list is his kingdom... Perl's excellent for text manipulation.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Chas. Owens wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 9:45 AM, Jay Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I certainly share your annoyance, I don't think we should punish
people for their employers' sins.
The problem is that there is no way to correctly guess where the
content ends and the sig begins (damn uns
On Nov 14, 2007 9:45 AM, Jay Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 12:13 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of disclaimer, which is not
> > even legally enforcable? That's really pretty inexcusable to thrust on a
On Nov 13, 2007 12:13 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of disclaimer, which is not
> even legally enforcable? That's really pretty inexcusable to thrust on a
> mailing list. Did I mention it's pointless, and unenforcable?
>
> Pl
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W . Krahn) wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> > > > > long disclaimer> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of
> > > disclaimer
> >
> > Oh, no, Randal,
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> > > long disclaimer> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of
> > disclaimer
>
> Oh, no, Randal, you didn't READ it, did you? Surely you are not
> specificall
On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> disclaimer>
> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of disclaimer
Oh, no, Randal, you didn't READ it, did you? Surely you are not
specifically the "intended recipient" of the message, so you are
"strictly prohibited" fr
> ""Brown," == "Brown, Rodrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Brown,> How can I split a string based on this char? Or even print it in perl
"Brown,> Thanks.
"Brown,> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
"Brown,> This message is intended o
On 11/13/07, Brown, Rodrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I split a string based on this char? Or even print it in perl
Do you know specifically which character you want? Any character may
be represented by a backslash escape in a literal string. If you can
find your character on an ASCII
On Nov 13, 2007 9:56 AM, Brown, Rodrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How can I split a string based on this char? Or even print it in perl
> Thanks.
snip
I assume you are talking about the Start of Header ASCII control
character. This is character 1 in the ASCII set, so you should be
able to sp
How can I split a string based on this char? Or even print it in perl
Thanks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
designated recipient(s) named above. If you are no
20 matches
Mail list logo
