confirm another bug please

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

confirm another bug please

mzyzik
Gentlemen,

Through my excessive use of Vim lately, I may have discovered another bug.

Consider the line, "        asdf".
If my cursor is at the beginning of the line, and I type d^ it will
delete all the spaces up to "asdf". When I type d_ it deletes the entire
line, which I believe is wrong. I think the intended behavior for d_ in
this case (with a [count] of 1), should be exactly like d^.

Let me know. Thanks.

--Matt Zyzik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: confirm another bug please

A.J.Mechelynck
[hidden email] wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> Through my excessive use of Vim lately, I may have discovered another bug.
>
> Consider the line, "        asdf".
> If my cursor is at the beginning of the line, and I type d^ it will
> delete all the spaces up to "asdf". When I type d_ it deletes the entire
> line, which I believe is wrong. I think the intended behavior for d_ in
> this case (with a [count] of 1), should be exactly like d^.
>
> Let me know. Thanks.
>
> --Matt Zyzik
>
>
>

It's not a bug, it's a feature (Read ":help ^" and ":help _").

^ (as in d^) is exclusive characterwise: it deletes up to, but not
including, the first non-blank on the line.

_ (as in d_) is a linewise motion, so d_ deletes the whole line.


Best regards,
Tony.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: confirm another bug please

mzyzik
Gentlemen,

After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.

I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
"words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
Is this the intended behavior?

Thanks.

--Matt

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:08:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > Through my excessive use of Vim lately, I may have discovered another bug.
> >
> > Consider the line, "        asdf".
> > If my cursor is at the beginning of the line, and I type d^ it will
> > delete all the spaces up to "asdf". When I type d_ it deletes the entire
> > line, which I believe is wrong. I think the intended behavior for d_ in
> > this case (with a [count] of 1), should be exactly like d^.
> >
> > Let me know. Thanks.
> >
> > --Matt Zyzik
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's not a bug, it's a feature (Read ":help ^" and ":help _").
>
> ^ (as in d^) is exclusive characterwise: it deletes up to, but not
> including, the first non-blank on the line.
>
> _ (as in d_) is a linewise motion, so d_ deletes the whole line.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

about another bug

mzyzik
All,

Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
I simply noticed that "e" and "ge" treat words differently ("ge"
considers an empty line to be a word, while "e" doesn't).
My question is, is this the intended behavior? And if so, why?

Thanks.

--Matt

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:17:16PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.
>
> I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
> in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
> the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
> "words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
> works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
> words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
> Is this the intended behavior?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Matt
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:08:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
> > [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > Through my excessive use of Vim lately, I may have discovered another bug.
> > >
> > > Consider the line, "        asdf".
> > > If my cursor is at the beginning of the line, and I type d^ it will
> > > delete all the spaces up to "asdf". When I type d_ it deletes the entire
> > > line, which I believe is wrong. I think the intended behavior for d_ in
> > > this case (with a [count] of 1), should be exactly like d^.
> > >
> > > Let me know. Thanks.
> > >
> > > --Matt Zyzik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's not a bug, it's a feature (Read ":help ^" and ":help _").
> >
> > ^ (as in d^) is exclusive characterwise: it deletes up to, but not
> > including, the first non-blank on the line.
> >
> > _ (as in d_) is a linewise motion, so d_ deletes the whole line.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tony.
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about another bug

Bram Moolenaar

Matt Zyzik wrote:

> Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
> I simply noticed that "e" and "ge" treat words differently ("ge"
> considers an empty line to be a word, while "e" doesn't).
> My question is, is this the intended behavior? And if so, why?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Matt
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:17:16PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.
> >
> > I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
> > in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
> > the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
> > "words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
> > works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
> > words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
> > Is this the intended behavior?

These movement commands are mostly made to work just like Vi, because
that is what people are used to.  Except for a few things that are
clearly a bug in Vi.

Perhaps "e" can be made to work more consistent, but that would also
make it work different from how it worked before.  In these situations I
find backwards compatibility more important.

--
A)bort, R)etry, B)ang it with a large hammer

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\        download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org        ///
 \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl         ///
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about another bug

mzyzik
Bram,

It's not so much that I wanted to change the behavior of "e"; but rather
"ge". I was hoping "ge" could behave more like "e".
Of course the best would be that in addition to an option in 'cpoptions'.

You could also use 'cpoptions' to have a way to switch back and forth
with the behaviors of "Y" and "cw". There is help in the help file on
how to do this; however, it recommends doing this: ":map cw dwi"; which
isn't the best solution because you cannot use "." with it.

Just ideas.

--Matt

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 09:39:09AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

>
> Matt Zyzik wrote:
>
> > Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
> > I simply noticed that "e" and "ge" treat words differently ("ge"
> > considers an empty line to be a word, while "e" doesn't).
> > My question is, is this the intended behavior? And if so, why?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --Matt
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:17:16PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.
> > >
> > > I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
> > > in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
> > > the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
> > > "words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
> > > works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
> > > words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
> > > Is this the intended behavior?
>
> These movement commands are mostly made to work just like Vi, because
> that is what people are used to.  Except for a few things that are
> clearly a bug in Vi.
>
> Perhaps "e" can be made to work more consistent, but that would also
> make it work different from how it worked before.  In these situations I
> find backwards compatibility more important.
>
> --
> A)bort, R)etry, B)ang it with a large hammer
>
>  /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
> ///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
> \\\        download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org        ///
>  \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl         ///
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about another bug

Ted Arnold
In reply to this post by mzyzik
Matt Zyzik wrote:
> All,
>
> Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.

Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid questions.

Thank you,
Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer

(Matt, I'm not joking your question is very idiotic)

> I simply noticed that "e" and "ge" treat words differently ("ge"
> considers an empty line to be a word, while "e" doesn't).
> My question is, is this the intended behavior? And if so, why?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Matt
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:17:16PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.
>>
>>I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
>>in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
>>the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
>>"words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
>>works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
>>words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
>>Is this the intended behavior?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>--Matt
>>
>>On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:08:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
>>
>>>[hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gentlemen,
>>>>
>>>>Through my excessive use of Vim lately, I may have discovered another bug.
>>>>
>>>>Consider the line, "        asdf".
>>>>If my cursor is at the beginning of the line, and I type d^ it will
>>>>delete all the spaces up to "asdf". When I type d_ it deletes the entire
>>>>line, which I believe is wrong. I think the intended behavior for d_ in
>>>>this case (with a [count] of 1), should be exactly like d^.
>>>>
>>>>Let me know. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>--Matt Zyzik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not a bug, it's a feature (Read ":help ^" and ":help _").
>>>
>>>^ (as in d^) is exclusive characterwise: it deletes up to, but not
>>>including, the first non-blank on the line.
>>>
>>>_ (as in d_) is a linewise motion, so d_ deletes the whole line.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Tony.
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about another bug

Ted Arnold
In reply to this post by mzyzik
Matt Zyzik wrote:
>
> Just ideas.

No, Matt we all know it's not "just ideas", it's pathetic groveling.  Just STFU.

Thank you,
Ted Arnold, Head Programmer, Vim

(Matt, does your life really revolve around the importance of "e"/"ge".  Sheeesh, I can't believe you Vim Weenies.)

>
> --Matt
>
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 09:39:09AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
>>Matt Zyzik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>>>I simply noticed that "e" and "ge" treat words differently ("ge"
>>>considers an empty line to be a word, while "e" doesn't).
>>>My question is, is this the intended behavior? And if so, why?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>--Matt
>>>
>>>On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:17:16PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gentlemen,
>>>>
>>>>After being explained about d_, I am content with how it behaves.
>>>>
>>>>I want to raise another issue I just ran into. I noticed that "e" works
>>>>in a somewhat strange way; yet still arguably correct, because vi does
>>>>the same thing. What I mean is, that "w" and "b" treat empty lines as
>>>>"words". "e" does not. So I figured this was a bug, until I saw that vi
>>>>works the same. What is strange to me is that "ge" treats empty lines as
>>>>words. I find it awkward that "e" and "ge" treat words differently.
>>>>Is this the intended behavior?
>>
>>These movement commands are mostly made to work just like Vi, because
>>that is what people are used to.  Except for a few things that are
>>clearly a bug in Vi.
>>
>>Perhaps "e" can be made to work more consistent, but that would also
>>make it work different from how it worked before.  In these situations I
>>find backwards compatibility more important.
>>
>>--
>>A)bort, R)etry, B)ang it with a large hammer
>>
>> /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
>>///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
>>\\\        download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org        ///
>> \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl         ///
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

admin, please, blacklist this user

Lubomir Host
In reply to this post by Ted Arnold
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:

> Matt Zyzik wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>
> Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
> questions.
>
> Thank you,
> Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer

Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,

please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.

Thanks.

<spam>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vim/message/64350" title="Ted
Arnold stupid troll">Ted Arnold, you wanna be a stupid troll?</a>
</spam>

--
Lubomir Host 'rajo' <rajo AT platon.sk>   ICQ #:  257322664   ,''`.
Platon Group                              http://platon.sk/  : :' :
Homepage: http://rajo.platon.sk/                             `. `'
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html         `-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Ted Arnold
Lubomir Host wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
>
>>Matt Zyzik wrote:
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>>
>>Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
>>questions.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
>
>
> Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
>
> please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
> from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.

Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.

Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this already.

What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Ted Arnold
In reply to this post by Lubomir Host
Lubomir Host wrote:
>
> please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
> from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.

I think it's fitting that a vim weenie cannot manage his spam filter.

oh yes, I'm going to have some fun with you incompetent little weenies.

Ted Arnold
(definitely superior to this group)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

A.J.Mechelynck
In reply to this post by Ted Arnold
Ted Arnold wrote:

> Lubomir Host wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Zyzik wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>>>
>>> Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
>>
>>
>> Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
>>
>> please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
>> from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
>
> Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.
>
> Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this
> already.
>
> What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
>
>
>

Ted, you've been told several times how to unsubscribe yourself.
"There's no worse deaf person than he who will not listen."

The administrator of the vim lists is an overworked member of the math
faculty at Berlin Free University; Bram lives in Venlo (The
Netherlands), I'm in Brussels (Belgium) and the rest of the users are
all over the world. Most of us have no administrative privileges over
the list.

Now how to unsubscribe hangs not on what you write in your emails but on
who you send them to: send an email to [hidden email] and
another one to [hidden email] (those emails may contain
anything or even be empty) and by this time tomorrow (if you stop
playing the fool) you can be unsubscribed for good.

Happy New Year,
Tony.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

last message from Ted Arnold

Lubomir Host
In reply to this post by Ted Arnold
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 08:11:30AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
> Lubomir Host wrote:
> >
> >please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
> >from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
>
> I think it's fitting that a vim weenie cannot manage his spam filter.
> oh yes, I'm going to have some fun with you incompetent little weenies.
>
> Ted Arnold

You wanna fight? OK. ;-) Your message was the last. Sorry.

-----------------------------------%<-----------------------------------
# telnet idea.platon.sk 25
Trying 195.168.3.8...
Connected to idea.platon.sk.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 Idea.Platon.SK ESMTP
helo vim.org
250 Idea.Platon.SK
mail from: <[hidden email]>
250 Ok
rcpt to:<[hidden email]>
504 <[hidden email]>: Sender address rejected: Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> is stupid troll so we don't receive messages from him. Add them to blacklist too.
quit
221 Bye
Connection closed by foreign host.
-----------------------------------%<-----------------------------------

rajo

--
Lubomir Host 'rajo' <rajo AT platon.sk>   ICQ #:  257322664   ,''`.
Platon Group                              http://platon.sk/  : :' :
Homepage: http://rajo.platon.sk/                             `. `'
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html         `-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Georg Dahn
In reply to this post by A.J.Mechelynck
Hi!

I don't think that the person who calls himself Ted
Arnold just wants to be unsubscribed from the list. I
don't think, that he does not know how to unsubscribe,
since unsubscribing is as easy as subscribing, what
the person who calls himself Ted Arnold has done at
least twice until now:

[hidden email]
[hidden email]

I suppose, that we will see a Ted Arnold
[hidden email], too. He seems to switch his email
address as soon as it is highly probable having been
added to the kill files of most users.

Best regards,
Georg


--- "A. J. Mechelynck" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Ted, you've been told several times how to
> unsubscribe yourself.
> "There's no worse deaf person than he who will not
> listen."



               
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: last message from Ted Arnold

Edward L. Fox
In reply to this post by Lubomir Host
Hi Rajo,

2006/1/3, Lubomir Host <[hidden email]>:

> [...]
> -----------------------------------%<-----------------------------------
> # telnet idea.platon.sk 25
> Trying 195.168.3.8...
> Connected to idea.platon.sk.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 Idea.Platon.SK ESMTP
> helo vim.org
> 250 Idea.Platon.SK
> mail from: <[hidden email]>
> 250 Ok
> rcpt to:<[hidden email]>
> 504 <[hidden email]>: Sender address rejected: Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> is stupid troll so we don't receive messages from him. Add them to blacklist too.
> quit
> 221 Bye
> Connection closed by foreign host.
> -----------------------------------%<-----------------------------------

I'm sorry but I can't understand these commands. Could you please tell
me what they stand for?

By the way, Ted-the-troll has another E-mail address [hidden email]
(may be more), could you please block that, too?

> [...]


Best regards!


Edward L. Fox
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Ted Arnold
In reply to this post by A.J.Mechelynck
A. J. Mechelynck wrote:

> Ted Arnold wrote:
>
>>Lubomir Host wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Zyzik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All,
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>>>>
>>>>Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
>>>>questions.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you,
>>>>Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
>>>
>>>please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
>>>from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
>>
>>Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.
>>
>>Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this
>>already.
>>
>>What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The administrator of the vim lists is an overworked member of the math
> faculty at Berlin Free University; Bram lives in Venlo (The
> Netherlands), I'm in Brussels (Belgium) and the rest of the users are
> all over the world. Most of us have no administrative privileges over
> the list.

I'd say you're fucked.

But I do enjoy seeing you whine and beg.

This is really just more piss-poor planning by you incompetent little shits.  Isn't it, tony, old boy.

Ted Arnold,
(definitely superior to this sorry ass collection of mis-fits)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

mzyzik
In reply to this post by A.J.Mechelynck
All,

Clearly this guy is not deaf; as he's carefully scrutinizing my emails.

He knows how to unsubscribe and is purposely being an idiot. I used to
do this sort of thing when I was in kindergarten; so I can totally relate.

We're at the mercy of the admins; because this idiot won't unsubscribe
by himself. Don't tell him to unsubscribe; he won't do it.

--Matt

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:19:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:

> Ted Arnold wrote:
> > Lubomir Host wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
> >>
> >>> Matt Zyzik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
> >>>
> >>> Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
> >>> questions.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
> >>
> >> please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
> >> from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
> >
> > Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.
> >
> > Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this
> > already.
> >
> > What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ted, you've been told several times how to unsubscribe yourself.
> "There's no worse deaf person than he who will not listen."
>
> The administrator of the vim lists is an overworked member of the math
> faculty at Berlin Free University; Bram lives in Venlo (The
> Netherlands), I'm in Brussels (Belgium) and the rest of the users are
> all over the world. Most of us have no administrative privileges over
> the list.
>
> Now how to unsubscribe hangs not on what you write in your emails but on
> who you send them to: send an email to [hidden email] and
> another one to [hidden email] (those emails may contain
> anything or even be empty) and by this time tomorrow (if you stop
> playing the fool) you can be unsubscribed for good.
>
> Happy New Year,
> Tony.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Peter Princz
In reply to this post by Ted Arnold
> Ted Arnold,
> (definitely superior to this sorry ass collection of mis-fits)
>

Hi Ted,

no doubt you are really superior to us little vim-weenies, see below
why. But in that case you could answer at least one email related to
vim thus taking your share in either supporting this great community,
or just proving you are superior.
So far, the only field where you showed your superiority, is offense
and misbehaviour.
Now it' s a great time to show us you know vim. Otherwise I have to
think you must be a frustrated little emacs-weenie who forgot to take
his drugs for today...
But before you leave, please do us a favour and let us know your
favourite text editor. That way we could do our very best to avoid it
in the rest of our lives. I think it must be related to your mental
illness, at least I haven't observed this level of aggressivity on vim
users. :)

Peace,
  Peter

--
Keep cool. Develop in total darkness.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

Ted Arnold-2
In reply to this post by mzyzik
[hidden email] wrote:
>
> We're at the mercy of the admins; because this idiot won't unsubscribe
> by himself. Don't tell him to unsubscribe; he won't do it.

Matt, for you, and you only, if you ask real nice I'll unsubscribe.

Ted Arnold

>
> --Matt
>
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:19:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
>
>>Ted Arnold wrote:
>>
>>>Lubomir Host wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Zyzik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
>>>>>questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you,
>>>>>Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
>>>>
>>>>please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
>>>>from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
>>>
>>>Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.
>>>
>>>Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this
>>>already.
>>>
>>>What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ted, you've been told several times how to unsubscribe yourself.
>>"There's no worse deaf person than he who will not listen."
>>
>>The administrator of the vim lists is an overworked member of the math
>>faculty at Berlin Free University; Bram lives in Venlo (The
>>Netherlands), I'm in Brussels (Belgium) and the rest of the users are
>>all over the world. Most of us have no administrative privileges over
>>the list.
>>
>>Now how to unsubscribe hangs not on what you write in your emails but on
>>who you send them to: send an email to [hidden email] and
>>another one to [hidden email] (those emails may contain
>>anything or even be empty) and by this time tomorrow (if you stop
>>playing the fool) you can be unsubscribed for good.
>>
>>Happy New Year,
>>Tony.
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: admin, please, blacklist this user

mzyzik
darn it; he got me. the guy who declared himself to be a shithead in
his first email is actually semi-smart.

FINE!

Ted, I ask of you, nicely, please unsubscribe from this list. Pretty
please.

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> >We're at the mercy of the admins; because this idiot won't unsubscribe
> >by himself. Don't tell him to unsubscribe; he won't do it.
>
> Matt, for you, and you only, if you ask real nice I'll unsubscribe.
>
> Ted Arnold
>
> >
> >--Matt
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:19:11PM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
> >
> >>Ted Arnold wrote:
> >>
> >>>Lubomir Host wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:55AM -0800, Ted Arnold wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Matt Zyzik wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Maybe I should clarify my last email because I didn't get a response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Matt, your question is stupid.  Please don't bother us with stupid
> >>>>>questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thank you,
> >>>>>Ted Arnold, Chief Vim Programmer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear administrator of vim-dev mailinglist,
> >>>>
> >>>>please, can you add Ted Arnold <[hidden email]> to blacklist? Messages
> >>>>from him can't be correctly filtered by spam filters.
> >>>
> >>>Now your talking, Lubomir.  I vote for that.
> >>>
> >>>Who is the incompetent weenie administrator, that he hasn't done this
> >>>already.
> >>>
> >>>What a collection of fucking losers you vim people are.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ted, you've been told several times how to unsubscribe yourself.
> >>"There's no worse deaf person than he who will not listen."
> >>
> >>The administrator of the vim lists is an overworked member of the math
> >>faculty at Berlin Free University; Bram lives in Venlo (The
> >>Netherlands), I'm in Brussels (Belgium) and the rest of the users are
> >>all over the world. Most of us have no administrative privileges over
> >>the list.
> >>
> >>Now how to unsubscribe hangs not on what you write in your emails but on
> >>who you send them to: send an email to [hidden email] and
> >>another one to [hidden email] (those emails may contain
> >>anything or even be empty) and by this time tomorrow (if you stop
> >>playing the fool) you can be unsubscribed for good.
> >>
> >>Happy New Year,
> >>Tony.
> >>
> >
> >
>
12