Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: merlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Randal L. Schwartz)
- Date: 30 Mar 2006 12:10:24 -0800
"John" == John Bean <waterfoot@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
John> AKA "dark fram subtraction". Absolutely correct, it does
John> effect the raw data.
Well, it has an effect on the raw data, because it *a*ffects the raw data.
Affect = verb
Effect = noun
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: John Bean
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- References:
- Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: dtype
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: John Bean
- Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Prev by Date: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Next by Date: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Previous by thread: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Next by thread: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
