leech@vivaldi.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb01.204935.7996@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: |> Really, a killfile line should take care of the vi talk for |> those of you that don't care for it. It's not as though because |> of vi talk there can't be other stuff here. Really, it wouldn't. Consider a few other articles showing up this morning: 'Side effects of mapping', which talks about vi-specific problems irrelevant to editors in general, and 'Function Keys (was vi and emacs)', which is on more generic issues having little to do with vi. If killfiles were so great, we wouldn't have any separate newsgroups. The question is whether the amount of vi-specific discussion is great enough to warrant its own newsgroup, which a number of people seem to believe. I don't really understand why such a religious vi advocate as yourself objects to having your own newsgroup. This discussion is supposed to take place in news.groups, so followups directed there. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``One never knows... Deacon now wants to conduct population explosion tests *underground*.'' - Molester Mole
raymond@math.berkeley.edu (Raymond Chen) (02/08/91)
In article <1123@borg.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer (Jonathan Leech) writes: >There is something which might get discussed *less*, to wit, >flamage by rabid vi/emacs users against each other ... This hypothesis will probably go down the drain the first time somebody cross-posts into (the proposed) comp.editors.vi and comp.emacs a question like I need to do X. Either vi or emacs is fine. whence follows a massive flame-fest between vixen and emacsen over which editor is better-suited to the task. My personal feeling is that a split is unnecessary.