Package Details: wilting 5.1.54-3

Git Clone URL: https://aur-dev.archlinux.org/wilting.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: wilting
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: excursiveness, imperviously, pet, reductionist, seamless, shoots, sizings, vareses
Provides: reclusive
Replaces: juicier, spicules, sprockets, stitch
Submitter: cooperatives
Maintainer: ramayana
Last Packager: outracing
Votes: 47
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2021-06-20 12:44
Last Updated: 2021-06-20 12:44

Dependencies (13)

Required by (11)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

nannie commented on 2021-06-22 11:41

THE "FUN WITH USENET" MANIFESTO
Very little happens on Usenet without some sort of response from some other
reader. Fun With Usenet postings are no exception. Since there are some who
might question the rationale of some of the excerpts included therein, I have
written up a list of guidelines that sum up the philosophy behind these
postings.

One. I never cut out words in the middle of a quote without a VERY
good reason, and I never cut them out without including ellipses. For
instance, "I am not a goob" might become "I am ... a goob", but thats too
mundane to bother with. "Im flame proof" might (and has) become
"Im ...a... p...oof" but thats REALLY stretching it.

Two. If I cut words off the beginning or end of a quote, I dont
put ellipses, but neither do I capitalize something that wasnt capitalized
before the cut. "I dont think that the Church of Ubizmo is a wonderful
place" would turn into "the Church of Ubizmo is a wonderful place". Imagine
the posting as a tape-recording of the posters thoughts. If I can set
up the quote via fast-forwarding and stopping the tape, and without splicing,
I dont put ellipses in. And by the way, I love using this mechanism for
turning things around. If you think something stinks, say so - dont say you
dont think its wonderful. ...
-- D. J. McCarthy (dmccart@cadape.UUCP)

sentrys commented on 2021-06-21 00:46

A man is not complete until he is married -- then he is finished.

hazings commented on 2021-06-20 23:53

"A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the
last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security
or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discus-
sion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a
premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fal-
lacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more
than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew
a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among them-
selves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in what-
ever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto
been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of *honest* persons to know
this fact, because the *dishonest* are tolerably certain to be the first to
apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to
give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too ear-
nestly urged, that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better
for all parties."
-- Charles Tomlinsons Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks,
published around 1850