Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Combined reply
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Tom Haughey wrote:

> Those shorts are a true example of science fiction.  They aren't
> really made for human beings.  Look closely at the description.
> There's no fly.

Does anyone really use one?  I thought everyone went "over the top,"
as I do.

Mike Bartman wrote:

> (The nice folks at Hormel would really like us to talk about UCE
> instead of spam, but it ain't gonna happen.)

How about "UBE"?  The problem is Unsolicited *Bulk* Email, not
Unsolicited *Commercial* Email.  Most of the UBE is UCE, but that's
not what's objectionable about it.  An unsolicited message sent just
to you isn't objectionable, even if it's commercial.  An unsolicited
message sent to millions of people is objectionable, even if it isn't
commercial.  "It's about consent, not content."

> (The Black Cat's Shack...don't recall the node number but it was
> net 109).

1:109/401.

> If you want an idea what TPU macros look like, ...

I'm familiar with TPU.  I was one of its beta testers in 1984.  Emacs
is more powerful.  Just try binding a TPU command to ^C, ^Q, ^S, ^X,
or ^Y.

I've been using emacs for 25 years, and I find it's easily learnable.
Why, I already know more than half the commands!