On 01/07/2023 10:30, R.Wieser wrote:
> James,
>
>> Why would you go to a forum where "a good percentage of users would
>> be using Linux", rather than a forum devoted to Linux, where that
>> percentage could reasonably be assumed to be 100?
>
> If I would know everything (including the knowledge of a more apropriate
> newsgroup ) than I would not have needed to post a question to begin with.
> Ever thought about that ?
>
>> It's significantly less than 100% here
>
> You don't say.
>
>> several of the people who post here dismiss any Linux-specific comment in
>> the belief that Linux is unimportant compared to Windows.
>
> And those are not the ones who would have the Linux knowledge to answer my
> current question, so thats fine by me.
>
> But thank you for the warning.
>
> And for the record, if I would have had that other newsgroup in my shortlist
> I would have posted there.
>

It's also important to note that /using/ Linux is not the same as
/programming/ for Linux. (For example, most of /my/ C++ programming is
done /on/ Linux, but not /for/ Linux.) And the great majority of people
who write code for Linux would have no need for such raw keyboard
handling. And if a library for handling all your needs is available, it
will almost certainly be in C, not C++.

All in all, your only real hope in posting here would be from one of the
old regulars who have been coding for *nix systems since the beginning
of time. And you seem to have insulted or annoyed most of them.

If your original post had been asking how to turn a horrible huge C
switch into something more elegant and maintainable in C++, you'd be in
the right place here.

I don't know of any newsgroups where you would be able to get the help
you want. It would have to be somewhere that covered such terminal
access that is probably common to all POSIX systems, but the group could
not mention UNIX, BSD or anything other than Linux because you believe
them to be completely different. The members should be happy to help a
poster despite sarcasm and insults. They should accept a total
disregard for conventions and group standards. The existing members of
the group should be proud to search the web and group archives for you,
so that you would not be exposed to any unpleasant adverts or posts.
No, sorry, I don't know of any such Usenet groups or other forums.

David,

> All in all, your only real hope in posting here would be from one of the
> old regulars who have been coding for *nix systems since the beginning of
> time.

And the reason you think that a library written for Unix (or a very old
version of Linux) will be usable under a nowerdays version of Linux is ... ?

> And you seem to have insulted or annoyed most of them.

I think they are thankfull that I have not dumped a question in their
newsgroup that has absolutily zero to do with the OS their newsgroup is for.

> If your original post had been asking how to turn a horrible huge C switch
> into something more elegant and maintainable in C++, you'd be in the right
> place here.

Too bad that that wasn't a question I wanted to ask.

> I don't know of any newsgroups where you would be able to get the help you
> want.

Shucks. And the question was such an easy one ! Does something like it
already exist in Linux, and if so where can I find it. I shrudder about
what the result would be for a really complex question ...

> It would have to be somewhere that covered such terminal access

You misread. I did not ask about terminal access. I asked if the parsing of
such input would possibly already exist. Nothing more.

> The members should be happy to help a poster despite sarcasm and insults.

That some people here have not been able to comprehend my, rather simple,
question is one thing.

However, if they than start to demand that I take their resulting crap as
the answer and refuse to accept my explanation to why it isn't and than keep
pressing it nonetheless than they deserve my ire.

Try thinking of our situation in reverse : how long would it take for you to
be fed up with such behaviour ? My guess is, not much longer than it took
me.

Than again, most people would than just stop responding. I've not quite
gotten the hang of that yet. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 03/07/2023 13:04, R.Wieser wrote:

> Than again, most people would than just stop responding. I've not quite
> gotten the hang of that yet. :-\
>

Try harder. We are all cheering for you.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> writes:
>Keith,
>
>>> Ah yes, about that : Are you aware that Linux != Unix ?
>...
>> Yes, I'm aware.
>
>Than why did you try to push me to that newsgroup. It makes zero sense.

It makes total sense to everyone but you, which is your problem, not ours.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> writes:
>James,
>
>> "comp.os.linux.answers" appears to be a fairly active linux oriented
>> group
>
>Thank you for that suggestion. Alas, ethernal september (my newsgroup host)
>doesn't seem to carry it. :-\

Ah, so sad. You must be aware that Google Groups does provide
an interface that would allow you to participate in that usenet
newsgroup.

It's sad that you don't seem to be able to find the information
yourself, which prior to the internet, was the standard way to learn
something. Go to the library and read a book. Go to the community
college and take a class. Read publically shared code written by others
to get ideas.

But continuing your current pointless arguments with the long-time denizens
of this C++ language group expecting them to write your program for you
is the definition of insanity.

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 11:03:42 +0200
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>Keith,
>
>> You could post a single message on this thread saying that
>> you're going to continue the discussion in comp.unix.programmer.
>
>Ah yes, about that : Are you aware that Linux != Unix ? I might well be

The distinction vanished long ago from a programming POV. The vast majority
of unix development these days is done on Linux. I've posted linux specific
questions on that group and no one complained.

On 7/3/23 04:59, R.Wieser wrote:
> James,
>
>> "comp.os.linux.answers" appears to be a fairly active linux oriented
>> group
>
> Thank you for that suggestion. Alas, ethernal september (my newsgroup host)
> doesn't seem to carry it. :-\
>

I should have checked that before posting, but it supports many other
members of the comp.os.linux hierarchy. If nothing else,
comp.os.linux.misc should, by definition, cover it.

...
>> I very clearly distinguished Unix and Linux in the part of my message
>> that you chose to snip - how could you derive from that the conclusion
>> that I was confusing them?
>
> By trying to push my Linux related question into a Unix related newsgroup.
> Are you daft or something ? Or just suffering from dementia ?

What is Linux-specific about your question - other than the fact that
you have specified that you want a linux solution? How would a Unix
solution that was, therefore, also a linux soluction, be either
impossible or not useful to you?

>
>> No, I think you'll get answers of varying quality,
>
> Which is another "water is wet" kind of thing. Skipped.
>
>> That's less likely to be the case in a newsgroup devoted to Linux.
>
> I recently asked a RPi platform-specific hardware and Linux OS specific
> question in an RPi specific newsgroup. For some reason people there where,
> for whatever reason, coming up with all kinds of Non-RPi references. You
> where saying ?

I said "less likely" - I didn't say "impossible".

>>> In the same vein I can, with absolute certainty, tell you that the
>>> maximum
>>> level of linux expertise here is 100%.
>>
>> That seems incredibly unlikely to me. I've seen the levels of Linux
>> expertise displayed both here and in comp.UNIX.programmer
>
> :-) Thats the problem with grabbing the correct interpretation of what
> you're reading. As I tried to explain as reponse to your "less than a 100%"
> and "minimum is 0" blurbs.
>
> Knowledge-wise you /cannot/ go under zero, just as your "significantly less
> than 100%" /cannot/ be anything than being less than that 100% (besides what
> "significantly" might actually be).

I have no idea why you think those comments are relevant to my
statements. Nothing I said was so vacuous as to be equivalent to
pointing out that those are the lower and upper limits.

To make it concrete, if we were to imagine that it was possible to
objectively rate Linux expertise on a simple linear scale from 0 to 100,
then my experience is that a large fraction of those posting to
comp.lang.c++ have a rating less than 1, while those that do have a
higher rating have an average rating around 50. In contrast, very few of
the people posting to comp.unix.programmer have a rating less than 1,
and those that do have a higher rating have an average rating around 80.
I freely acknowledge that you have no obligation to believe me about
that. I certainly don't have any hard numbers, just subjective
assessments. However, if my assessments were correct, why would you want
to post a Linux-related question to comp.lang.c++ in preference to
comp.unix.programmer?

On 7/3/23 04:12, R.Wieser wrote:
> Keith,
>
>>> Ah yes, about that : Are you aware that Linux != Unix ?
> ...
>> Yes, I'm aware.
>
> Than why did you try to push me to that newsgroup. It makes zero sense.

Because Linux tends to comply with the requirements of the POSIX
standard. As long as what you're talking about doesn't involve any
linux-specific features (I might have missed something, but this issue
doesn't seem to involve any such features), it's at least as good a
place to go as a Linux-specific forum, and possibly better, because the
answer might be portable to other POSIX-conformant platforms.

....
> You mean the part above the "second question" ? If so, what *didn't* you
> understand about
>
> [quote=me, initial message]
> I was wondering if this perhaps is already part of Linux ...
> [/quote]
>
> ?

Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming that you would be interested in a
POSIX solution that worked on Linux, even if that solution doesn't
involve any features specific to linux.

>> I'm not the only person who has suggested that comp.unix.programmer
>> would be a better place for your question.
>
> True. You're one of exactly two who said that. And that makes it better
> ... how exactly ? How many people are there in this newsgroup ?

Because there's lots of Unix experts in that newsgroup, most of whom are
also Linux experts, who might be able to find a Unix solution to your
problem that works under Linux.

....
>> I was suggesting that you read Thomas Dickey's *answer*.
>
> I refer you to my reply to 'Christian', just before my reply to you.

You mean the answer that said "If you're clever, you can turn off echo,
and (since filter suppresses the screen erasure), pretend that it
updates nothing at all."?

On 03/07/2023 17:20, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 7/3/23 04:59, R.Wieser wrote:
>> James,
>>

> assessments. However, if my assessments were correct, why would you want
> to post a Linux-related question to comp.lang.c++ in preference to
> comp.unix.programmer?

Normally you (or Keith, or anyone) would write a summary-so-far, x-post
to c.u.p and set f/ups.

Why not this time? Because Rudy is rude and/or too stubborn?

He doesn't have a question about c++, he has a question about posix -
and c.u.p is exactly where he should be asking.

Am 03.07.23 um 13:04 schrieb R.Wieser:
> David,
>
>> All in all, your only real hope in posting here would be from one of the
>> old regulars who have been coding for *nix systems since the beginning of
>> time.
>
> And the reason you think that a library written for Unix (or a very old
> version of Linux) will be usable under a nowerdays version of Linux is ... ?

At this point, I believe you must be trolling.

Christian

In article <u7v4de$3ov02$1@dont-email.me>,
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>Am 03.07.23 um 13:04 schrieb R.Wieser:
>> David,
>>
>>> All in all, your only real hope in posting here would be from one of the
>>> old regulars who have been coding for *nix systems since the beginning of
>>> time.
>>
>> And the reason you think that a library written for Unix (or a very old
>> version of Linux) will be usable under a nowerdays version of Linux is ... ?
>
>At this point, I believe you must be trolling.

Not so much trolling, per se, but on a quixotic hope that people (the kind
of people who inhabit CLC and CLC++) will change, evolve and grow.

It won't happen, but one can always hope.

--
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

Muttly,

> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
> one complained.

Thanks for that.

Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.

To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
used in an Audi.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

James,

>> Thank you for that suggestion. Alas, ethernal september (my newsgroup
>> host) doesn't seem to carry it. :-\
>
> I should have checked that before posting,

I disagree. Its not your task to be aware of everyones newsgroup providers
and different newsgroups those offer.

> but it supports many other members of the comp.os.linux hierarchy.

Ah. That gives a much shorter list. Thanks.

> If nothing else, comp.os.linux.misc should, by definition, cover it.

And it seems to be active too. :-)

> What is Linux-specific about your question other than the fact that
> you have specified that you want a linux solution?

Because I'm running Linux, and have no use for a support thats available
under Unix, but not Linux.

> I have no idea why you think those comments are relevant to my
> statements. Nothing I said was so vacuous as to be equivalent to
> pointing out that those are the lower and upper limits.

Thats the whole thing : you made it sound as if those two numbers where
somehow of any importance, but in fact all they are the limits of the range.
You cannot come up with a number above 100% or below the 0. Therefore
naming them as you did had zero meaning to me. Yet, you did.

> then my experience is that a large fraction of those posting to
> comp.lang.c++ have a rating less than 1, while those that do have a
> higher rating have an average rating around 50.

Wow. I'm going to assume you think that you are one of the 50 percenters,
here and as such you cannot really stand this newsgroup - because of all the
nitwits ... ehhh ... 1 percenters in it.

> In contrast, very few of the people posting to comp.unix.programmer have
> a rating less than 1, and those that do have a higher rating have an
> average
> rating around 80.

Sounds good.

> I freely acknowledge that you have no obligation to believe me about
> that.

I think you think you are saying the truth and that its relevant.

I however have my doubts that what you measured (software knowledge) was
relevent to my question (availablility of something in Linux).

As my teacher said it "Measuring is knowing - if you know what you are
measuring".

> However, if my assessments were correct, why would you want
> to post a Linux-related question to comp.lang.c++ in preference to
> comp.unix.programmer?

Absolutily.

But as said, even though I do not doubt your assessment, I do doubt its
releveance.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Christian,

> At this point, I believe you must be trolling.

As I must believe that (some of) you guys are doing, as not understanding a
simple
question for so long takes a lot of effort.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <u7vcl8$3q06c$1@dont-email.me>, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>Muttly,
>
>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>> one complained.
>
>Thanks for that.
>
>Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.

I've been following this thread since the beginning - I've read all the
posts, and already commented once or twice. I've also often wished for an
off-the-shell solution to this problem - the closest does indeed seem to be
ncurses - but that's less than optimal for all the reasons that we've all
seen listed here.

That all said, this is really what I'd call a "software" problem. I.e.,
if I were laying out a newsgroup hierarchy, the ideal group for this
question would be something like: comp.linux.software (or maybe comp.unix.software)
(I have no idea if a group of that name already exists).

The idea is that you want to know if software already exists to do what you
want. Note, BTW, that many of us have in fact already implemented some
homespun version of this (at least, you, me, and one other poster here),
and the thing we all have in common is a feeling of annoyance at having had
to do so. There really *should* be an off-the-shell solution.

BTW, doing it in full generality is nowhere near as easy or straightforward
as some here have been making it out to be. I may, in a future post, share
some details of my solution - you'll be amazed at how many special cases
there are.

--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous
to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 7/3/23 04:59, R.Wieser wrote:
>> James,
>>
>>> "comp.os.linux.answers" appears to be a fairly active linux oriented
>>> group
>>
>> Thank you for that suggestion. Alas, ethernal september (my newsgroup host)
>> doesn't seem to carry it. :-\
>>
>
> I should have checked that before posting, but it supports many other
> members of the comp.os.linux hierarchy. If nothing else,
> comp.os.linux.misc should, by definition, cover it.

I'm also on Eternal September, and can confirm that it's not carried.
James, I think you're on Eternal September as well.

I took a look on groups.google.com, and it appears that the most recent
post was in 2011, subject "Moderator Vacancy Investigation:
comp.os.linux.answers". It's possible GG's horrid user interface has
misled me.

How do you see it as "fairly active"?

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> writes:
> On 03/07/2023 17:20, James Kuyper wrote:
>> assessments. However, if my assessments were correct, why would you want
>> to post a Linux-related question to comp.lang.c++ in preference to
>> comp.unix.programmer?
>
> Normally you (or Keith, or anyone) would write a summary-so-far,
> x-post to c.u.p and set f/ups.
>
> Why not this time? Because Rudy is rude and/or too stubborn?

Yes.

> He doesn't have a question about c++, he has a question about posix -
> and c.u.p is exactly where he should be asking.

I agree, and I've suggested that he should post to c.u.p. His
unwillingness to do so does not suggest that he would participate in a
new thread started there by someone else. At worst, it would just
increase the noise level in c.u.p. And cross-posting to another
newsgroup and setting followups would probably not affect the
"discussion" here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 7/3/23 15:32, R.Wieser wrote:
> Muttly,
>
>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>> one complained.
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
> in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>
> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
> used in an Audi.

Linux generally meets the requirements of the POSIX standard. What do
Audis and Fords have in common that is analogous to that relationship?

On 7/3/23 16:50, R.Wieser wrote:
> James,
>
>>> Thank you for that suggestion. Alas, ethernal september (my newsgroup
>>> host) doesn't seem to carry it. :-\
>>
>> I should have checked that before posting,
>
> I disagree. Its not your task to be aware of everyones newsgroup providers
> and different newsgroups those offer.

I normally use eternal-september with Thunderbird. One of the few
advantages of Google Groups over Thunderbird+Eternal September is better
search facilities (though they are far inferior to the ones that Deja
News provided before Google took over their archive). That's why I used
GG to find the group, but it would not have been difficult for me to
check for it's availability on eternal september before recommending it.

>> What is Linux-specific about your question other than the fact that
>> you have specified that you want a linux solution?
>
> Because I'm running Linux, and have no use for a support thats available
> under Unix, but not Linux.

Yes, but do you have any particular reason to believe that such lack of
Linux support is likely? Most Unix solutions work under Linux.

>
>> I have no idea why you think those comments are relevant to my
>> statements. Nothing I said was so vacuous as to be equivalent to
>> pointing out that those are the lower and upper limits.
>
> Thats the whole thing : you made it sound as if those two numbers where
> somehow of any importance, but in fact all they are the limits of the range.
> You cannot come up with a number above 100% or below the 0. Therefore
> naming them as you did had zero meaning to me. Yet, you did.

You were the one who mentioned 100%, not me, claiming that it was the
maximum level of Linux expertise in this newsgroup. My own assessment is
that the maximum is closer to 90%. Since I myself am not near the top of
that distribution, I can't be sure, but my experience suggests that
you'll find the 100%ers over in comp.unix.programming, not here.

I mentioned that the minimum level of Linux expertise in this group is
0, not just because that's the mathematical minimum, but also because a
large fraction of the posters have exactly that level of Linux
expertise, something which is true of very few of the people posting to
comp.unis.programmer.

>> then my experience is that a large fraction of those posting to
>> comp.lang.c++ have a rating less than 1, while those that do have a
>> higher rating have an average rating around 50.
>
> Wow. I'm going to assume you think that you are one of the 50 percenters,
> here and as such you cannot really stand this newsgroup - because of all the
> nitwits ... ehhh ... 1 percenters in it.

I come to this newsgroup to discuss issues about C++; it doesn't bother
me that some people here lack Linux expertise. I go to
comp.unix.programmer to discuss issues about Unix, including issues
about Linux. It doesn't bother me that some of the people there lack C++
experience. That's what happens when you choose the appropriate forum
for discussing a particular topic - expertise relevant to that topic is
maximized, at the expense of expertise in other areas.

>> I freely acknowledge that you have no obligation to believe me about
>> that.
>
> I think you think you are saying the truth and that its relevant.
>
> I however have my doubts that what you measured (software knowledge) was

I didn't measure it - I just observed it. And I was very specifically
talking about my observations of their knowledge of Linux software.

> relevent to my question (availablility of something in Linux).

Why would knowledge of Linus software not be relevant to a question
about the availability of a particular kind of Linux software?

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>On 7/3/23 15:32, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Muttly,
>>
>>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>>> one complained.
>>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>> in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>>
>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
>> used in an Audi.
>
>Linux generally meets the requirements of the POSIX standard. What do
>Audis and Fords have in common that is analogous to that relationship?

There are dozens of standards that govern automobiles, starting with the
SAE and/or Metric standards used for fasteners, and up through various
standards that apply to the on-board software, CAN bus (being replaced
by ethernet on newer vehicles) and processors (from RAS
to security).

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:32:27 +0200
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>Muttly,
>
>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>> one complained.
>
>Thanks for that.
>
>Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>
>To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
>used in an Audi.

Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.

On 04/07/2023 17:54, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:32:27 +0200
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Muttly,
>>
>>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>>> one complained.
>>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>> in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>>
>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
>> used in an Audi.
>
> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>

It is more like asking a "Motorised vehicle dealer" about your vehicle
with wheels. The dealer might also sell tanks and other belted
vehicles, but most of the trade is in things with wheels.

Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does not share a common
ancestor in early UNIX code. But the functional commonality between
Linux and "true" UNIX versions is huge - you'll find very little code
that works on multiple UNIX systems that does not work equally well on
Linux.

It's possible that Linux has additional features that make the OP's task
easier on Linux than on one or more of the real UNIX's, but there is
still a much better chance of learning about that on c.u.p. than here in
c.l.c++.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does
> not share a common ancestor in early UNIX code.

I have to disagree with that claim. There is no
requirement to "share a common ancestor" at all
in order to be a UNIX system.

Linux could indeed become "a certified UNIX"
by fulfilling certain technical requirements:

https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix

The Linux community never bothered to do that.

It probably would not help in any real sense
and maybe they are not willing to put money
into it. Linux works fine just the way it is,
regardless of the "certified UNIX" status.

As far as I remember, when Dennis Ritchie was
asked whether Linux is a "real UNIX", he replied
that for all sensible definitions, yes, it is.
Or something like that.

The following is from Wikipedia and from
Dennis Ritchie's mouth:

"I think the Linux phenomenon is quite delightful,
because it draws so strongly on the basis that
Unix provided. Linux seems to be among the healthiest
of the direct Unix derivatives, though there are also
the various BSD systems as well as the more official
offerings from the workstation and mainframe
manufacturers."

"In the same interview, he states that he views both
Unix and Linux as "the continuation of ideas that were
started by Ken and me and many others, many years ago"

In any case, all that is pretty much off-topic.
The OP is making a fool of himself. He should just
shut up and go to comp.unix.programmer.

br,
KK

In article <u81hk0$57oe$1@dont-email.me>,
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
....
>In any case, all that is pretty much off-topic.
>The OP is making a fool of himself. He should just
>shut up and go to comp.unix.programmer.

But you guys keep feeding him. You keep egging him on. So, you're at
least partly to blame.

I remember well the moment where this all turned personal - where it turned
"meta" and became all about OP trying to explain himself and the rest of
you making sure to persecute him for his efforts. You all could have (and
should have) just ignored it. From the first moment where he turned
"meta", you could have just ignored it. But no...

Keith is actually directly responsible for it all (and I'm sure he's very
proud of himself) by insisting on bringing up irrelevant nonsense about
attribution-quoting and mentioning other newsgroups. He should have just
resisted the urge to be himself - but he never does.

--
There are a lot of Wisconsin farmers right now who, despite having
themselves voted for Trump, are now wishing that their state's electors
had had the good sense to vote for the other candidate - thereby saving
them from their current predicament.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> But you guys keep feeding him. You keep egging him on.
> So, you're at least partly to blame.

To be quite honest, I totally agree with you. This
thread should have died a long time ago.

I will only defend myself here by saying that I
posted *just one message* with the main intention
to correct what I thought was David Brown's false
statement about UNIX.

Yes, I also commented on the OP, but having read
over a hundred posts in this thread, I just
could not be quiet any longer...

This is my second post and I hope it will
be my last. :-)

br,
KK