From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:16:18 +0100
From: Martin Neubauer <m.ne@gmx.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Samterm up down key patch
Message-ID: <20061114141618.GD11151@shodan.homeunix.net>
References: <13426df10611140525k68c31de1s525c816957352836@mail.gmail.com>
	<e80ae7b859408322fc0c97864e7b9184@coraid.com>
	<13426df10611140544i5d4d2928nea0d64cd955a3b38@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13426df10611140544i5d4d2928nea0d64cd955a3b38@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dea243e8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

* ron minnich (rminnich@gmail.com) wrote:
> >this is a goofy argument.  i haven't seen "we've always done it this
> >way" trotted out as an argument.  perhaps i missed it.
>
> "If you change sam this way, it's inconsistent with rio and acme".
>
> reads to me like
> "But it's always worked this way".

I'm just questioning _gratuitious_ changes. One way to prevent those is to
kick loose a discussion about them. (Side effects may include complete loss
of focus on the subject at hand.)

Martin