On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 18:46 Canada/Eastern, Vincent Cayenne wrote: > Ah, the unobservant. Vince, pal. That's between me and my spiritual adviser. > Some signatures are fact and not whimsy. Cricket's is among the > former. Beg your pardon? > Fortunately cricket's reading of plain fact is as on point as your > re-interpretation is not. The statement advanced was: >> On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 8:23 PM, TheMacintoshLady wrote: >>> Um hello?? View as link, view as file. > > ...to which cricket responded: > At 8:02a -0700 2003.06.18, cricket wrote: >> We're talking about Mail, the built-in Mail application for Mac OS X. >> There is no such preference. > > ...which is absolutely correct. The preference you refer to is NOT > "View as link, view as file" by any syntactical, semantic or > comprehensive contortion. (Why "fortunately"? Did you have money riding on this?) I'm not a great one for post-modernist claptrap, and, anyway, I'm not sure this is the place for semantic analyses -- or even semiotic ones, however interesting and revealing they might be. But -- given that we are all subject to making mistakes -- this might be the place for a little courtesy and common sense. So TheMacintoshLady made a mistake. The initial reply was actually: > This is a setting in your mail accounts prefs to show it as a link or a > file. No it will not show up to people who use text, and some have it > turned off or only use text apps so they will just get it as an > attachment. But it was well meant, and cricket, instead of jumping with both feet (er, beg your pardon, all six feet, of course) on it could've said, "That's not quite correct; perhaps you mean this preference", etc., etc. You know, being helpful (let alone mature), which is the point of this list, ain't it? Because, after all, that was the part of the issue of the original post. And our estimeed entomologist and Samaritan was neither entirely helpful, nor entirely correct. "There is no configuration required", quotha. f