Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!mejac!gryphon!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm command misfeature
Message-ID: <9@desint.UUCP>
Date: 15 Feb 89 04:27:17 GMT
References: <963@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <4693@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: Interrupt Technology Corp., Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 25

In article <4693@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:

> Easy for you, difficult for others. But, in fact, your complaint has been
> noted. Now if this clutziness were found to be more common, we ELMgineers
> will  be glad to *improve* (notice I didn't use a loaded word like
> you did: "correct") ELM.

Loaded words?  You don't consider "klutzy" loaded (as well as misspelled)?

In any case, there are many people who have a problem hitting keys
adjacent to the one they intended.  One only has to attend a classical
piano recital to realize that this is a common human failing, even among
persons who have trained themselves to the virtuoso level.

I agree with John Dobnick:  elm should not take unilateral and irreversible
action without asking for confirmation, regardless of the particular
command syntax.  Furthermore, I think it would be nice if the "keep mail
in a different file" people would give a bit more consideration to the
equally valid "keep all mail in the incoming mailbox" view.  In other words,
no mail-reading agent should "helpfully" move already-seen mail into a
different file without giving the user a way to suppress this behavior.

There.  Now were any of those words loaded?  :-)
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   uunet!desint!geoff