From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:16:11 -0700
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20160521181611.GA68621@wopr>
References: <loom.20160519T202916-35@post.gmane.org>
	<CADuwikW=iSJ+auoSe48tKZwSoD5YSwU=TCzJe=k2=nUfx+=zrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOw7k5jRM7uvk=Mk0EV3B2y2HsO=1gmM+ZtEj1CB1tznpGWNMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160519215144.GG22691@wopr>
	<94da399e3d511fd1c3eba711ce9692e0@lilly.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94da399e3d511fd1c3eba711ce9692e0@lilly.quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] problem with acme on 9front
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9246a022-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:36:44AM -0700, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > This is tantamount to saying acme is superior because you are better at
> > acme.  [...]
>
> c'mon man.  you follow this with several paragraphs of opinion which appear
> to say that acme is not better because you don't like it.

Yes, having explicitly set the dimensions of the field, I proceeded to
stay in bounds.

> but then again, editors don't tend to lead to logical arguments.  :-)

I've never seen it happen, and I don't really expect to.  I do maintain
that calling acme an editor is akin to calling New York a shopping
center.

khm