* On 2002.09.09, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 08:59:24AM -0400, Bruno Lustosa wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ?
> > > ( FYI - Th
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:10:11AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> "Linux" is in "evitable" ==> "Linux is inevitable."
Yes. Quote from John "Maddog" Hall circa 1994 Linux Lectures.
(and quite true IMHO).
Word riddles are different from a plain scrambles in that they
require leaps of logic. Ma
* Bruno Lustosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-09 7:59am]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ?
> > ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it)
> > //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\
>
>
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 08:59:24AM -0400, Bruno Lustosa wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ?
> > ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it)
> > //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ?
> ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it)
> //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\
Linux is evitable?
What's the sense on it?
--
Bruno Lustosa, aka Lo
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:30:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Someday Sven will realize that mutt is a tool, not a religion. (maybe.. )
> (Now "where" did I put my flameproof suit / )
Oh, I doubt it. We'll probably have self-appointed net cops with us as long as
there's a net. Just wat
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:03:00PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 11:52]:
> > List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time for more RTM !
>
> argh!
hee hee, you are SO easy to tweak! :)
>
> > (I'm afraid Elm is still programmed into my fingers, ju
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 11:52]:
> > I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works
> > with the post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users
> > into the Cc: line to reply to the list. Any ideas why?
>
> List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time fo