Re: BX flatulence (was: 'BX dangers'

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

Carl Distefano wrote:

>
> Last time I checked, none of us is paid to participate in this list.
> We do it to help ourselves and be helpful to others if we can.
>


Some of us do try to be helpful. Others act with arrogance and pomposity in order
to impress newbies and/or to intimidate the more experienced users. I leave it to
you to decide for yourself which category you belong in.

> The "difference" is that if the problem is ancillary, like the
> refresh anomaly discussed here the other day, as opposed to
> essential and truly crippling, there may well be a simple workaround
> that's worth implementing in order to preserve the advantages of BX.
> Those include not only speed but, pre-eminently, the ability to
> execute commands without destroying the CMline.
>

Which is precisely why I gave it a try and decided that the disadvantages outweigh
the advantages. Others have come to the opposite conclusion. Hey, it's a big
world. We all live in it our own way, pard.

> Absent a single verifiable example, I see no fact, simple or
> otherwise, in your assertion that BX is broken. If it's broken,
> tell us how, so we can act constructively on the information!
>

Oh excuse me. Next time I find something in XyWrite that doesn't work the way I
had hoped I promise you'll be the first to know.

> Otherwise, better to save bandwidth and keep mum. Of what moment is
> it to us that you prefer to blank the command line every time?
>

And of what moment is it to us that you have actually created a 600k U2 help file?
Pardon me for not applauding.

--
Leslie Bialler
Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx