(Continued from previous message)

BG> that scenario is covered by just three keystrokes -- F8, X, and F8
BG> again.  Switching time?  About 1.5 seconds _in total_.

Yet again, rabbiting on about utter irrelevancys Bill. I thought
you had already managed to grasp that BOTH the decent keyboard
oriented task switcher AND the external in Msged can be defined to
use the SAME keystrokes. So this stuff is utterly fucking irrelevant.

The point I was making in that para, which you ignored completely,
is the loss of context in the external. What ever file you load with
List, you page to a point in that file to look at that info. *NOW* if
you need to go back to the original message again for some reason, you
*LOOSE* that context, when you switch back to List again as an external,
you have to fart around loading the file again, paging to the place again.
What a fucking shambles compared with an OS level task switch where you
come back to List with the screen in PRECISELY the same place it was when
you switched back to the message for a quick look.

RS> Completely fucked compared with a decent keyboard oriented task switch.

BG> It's by far the most economical use of the keyboard IN MY SITUATION.

RS> Nope, thats crap Bill. There is nothing special about YOUR SITUATION.

BG> Bullshit Rod, at least please show me the courtesy of allowing
BG> me to use my own system the most productive way I know.

Bullshit Bill, I am saying you havent been able to manage to work
out the most productive way to use that software IN YOUR SITUATION.

BG> Why waste time learning a whole new series of keystrokes?

You dont NEED to you dope, you just define whatever keystrokes you
have currently defined in Msged if you really want to do that.

BG> Why do you think I still use Shez?  Sure, it's an abortion
BG> key-wise, but I KNOW the keys backwards.  To me, it's a
BG> piece of piss to use, initial steep learning curve or not.

Pity its utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing when you
can define the SAME keystrokes in the OS level task switcher
if you want to do that. *AND* you get the other benefits
of not losing context in the external task etc etc etc.

BG> Ergo, there's no "right" or "wrong" way about it.

RS> Bullshit Bill, if one way of doing its is significantly
RS> worse, it makes no sense to do it that way.

BG> Show me a faster, more intuitive method, and I'll use it.

I have been doing that all along Bill, you dont even notice.

BG> I already know Msged's capabilities, and
BG> they are perfect for my use of that app.

Bullshit.

RS> Just look at that other argument we had with Paul about the use of
RS> an XT by a highschool kid for projects. Sure, it is indeed possible
RS> to use a single tasking system where you have to exit the wp to go
RS> and look something up on say a CDROM, but its quite fucked compared
RS> with doing it the sensible way with a decent tasks switcher.

BG> That's a totally different matter Rod.

Nope, precisely the same tripe about 'IN MY CIRCUMSTANCES'
can be waffled on about equally irrelevantly. There *IS*
a RIGHT way as long as its affordable Bill.

BG> We were discussing the difference between a single-tasking
BG> XT and a 32-bit MTing system, which has absolutely nothing
BG> to do with this particular discussion at all.

Fraid so Bill. You rave on about IN YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES and 'there is no
right way', and its just as big as load of crap as when Paul did it with XTs.

RS> There is indeed a right and wrong way and its only if you cant
RS> afford the right way etc that it makes any sense to go that route.

BG> And you call ME a zealot!  Fuck me dead Rod, have a look at some of
BG> the stuff you've posted already on this subject, then tell me who the
BG> zealot is.  |-)

Stop playing with yourself Bill. You know as well as I do that on
that question of the use of a single tasking system by a high school
kid its fucked productivity wise. Nothing zealoty about that, just a
recognition that the single tasking route is fucked productivity wise,
and is only viable if you cant afford the right way productivity wise.
And if it was me who was that kid, I would get off my arse and earn
some cash to do it the productive way anyway.

RS> The only sensible way is a better keyboard oriented OS level task switcher.

BG> Nope, it's not the "only sensible way" at all,

RS> Fraid so, even if you are so locked in the past you cant see it.

BG> That's right, when logic fails, resort to insults and condescension. |-)

Corse you would never stoop to anything like that yourself would you Bill.

BG> certainly not for the specific purpose I have in mind

RS> The specific situation is just those you listed. The OS level keyboard
RS> oriented task switch is better IN EVERY WAY, every single one.

BG> Nope.

Yep, living in the past Bill and dont even notice. Its always been
something thats bedevilled computing, people who just keep mindlessly
doing what they used to do long after it stopped making any sense to
do things that way.

BG> (and am using now quite successfully),

RS> No one is saying that the external wont work, just
RS> that its fucked compared with doing it properly.

BG> Properly?  What an interesting word that is.
BG> You'd do well to use it correctly next time too.  |-)

Enjoying yourself are you Bill ?

BG> and if I wanted to run my messages through a spelling-checker
BG> for example, there ain't no easier way to do it than with a
BG> Msged macro (as Chris does now).

RS> Well, spelling checkers are different, mainly coz they cant
RS> be as easily invoked with a simple OS level task switch.

BG> No, the app has to export the text somehow.

Nope, thats dinosaur stuff too. A proper fully integrated spelling
checker in a modern multithreaded app doesnt export text at all.

RS> In this case the problem is that its the integration
RS> of the spelling checking into the mail reader which is
RS> fucked, so you have to kludge it up with an external,

BG> Unlike OLX, Msged was never designed to use an integrated
BG> spelling checker,

No news to me Bill, its one of the reason I dont use those fucked
apps, BECAUSE they dont have that vital stuff properly integrated.

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202