From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6534 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 12:19:30 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 12:19:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 70042 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 12:19:23 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 12:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 26638 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2004 12:18:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7831 Received: (qmail 26628 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 12:18:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by 130.225.247.90 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 12:18:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 68560 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 12:16:50 -0000 Received: from main.gmane.org (80.91.224.249) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 12:16:49 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BvazI-0002jP-00 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:16:48 +0200 Received: from hippo.asfast.net ([216.182.10.250]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:16:48 +0200 Received: from ljz by hippo.asfast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:16:48 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: zsh-users@sunsite.dk From: Lloyd Zusman Subject: Re: Zsh 4.2.1 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200408131111.i7DBBBX5012667@news01.csr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hippo.asfast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:gQruF446s4B1WlxJGRgseAfZ5HQ= Sender: news X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_10 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: -0.9 Peter Stephenson writes: > [Hmm, are you allowed to say `more seamlessly'? Shouldn't it be > something like `more closely resembling an object conceived of > metaphorically as lacking in seams'?] Well, you could always say "less seamfully". :) -- Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com God bless you.