[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Back to the future
|
From: |
Peter Schaffter |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Back to the future |
|
Date: |
Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:12:18 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, address@hidden wrote:
> You're kidding! Treating AT&T requests (or the extensions -- as
> said, I don't got it) as being contaminated sanitary facilities? Isn't
> it a rating to call something salubrious or not?
I dunno. LT wasn't averse to "porcelain" and "plumbing" for git. :)
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, (continued)
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Peter Schaffter, 2014/03/06
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Mike Bianchi, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Anthony J. Bentley, 2014/03/07
- [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Kristaps Dzonsons, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, hohe72, 2014/03/05
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future,
Peter Schaffter <=
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/06
[Groff] Advocacy. (Was: Back to the future), Ralph Corderoy, 2014/03/07
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Robert Marks, 2014/03/07