Re: a sed question

with <vkblqk$22oro$1@news.xmission.com> Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <slrnvmidnd.9vr.apple.universe@freight.zombinet>,
Eric Pozharski  <apple.universe@posteo.net> wrote:

with <87msgourzu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Keith Thompson wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:09:25 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:36:32 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

*SKIP* [  8 lines   5 levels deep] # there isn't anything to see

I can no longer keep up with the rapid movement of the goalposts.  I
see no point in continuing this discussion.

Point of this (and many others) discussion is to generate engagement.
Turns out, talking about lizard people doesn't ignite Usenet.  Who
knew.

Good one.  You really got LDO's number to a T.
The funny thing is: I was the one who first brought up: Wouldn't this
all be easier/better/more-maintainable in AWK.  And I knew for a dead
cold fact that mentioning AWK would bring the Perl nuts out of the
woodwork to attack AWK and say how much better it would be to use
Perl.
I couldn't have been more prescient.

Thank you for this clear demonstration of how engagement is laid out.

p.s.  You do understand that you don't make sense?

p.p.s.  You don't have to!  It's engagement!

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom