Thanks for your reply, and thanks for putting it on the list! Oh, and thanks for checking the spelling (kmail, at least the version I use, doesn't check spelling (or maybe I haven't enabled spellcheck).
(I may check the US spelling at some point -- ah, ok, a quick google finds: <quote> “Publicly” and “publically” | Stroppy Editor https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/publicly-and-publically/ Dec 9, 2014 - It's widely regarded as a mistake (although some dictionaries now list it as a variant spelling). But the approved spelling, “publicly”, is a unique ... </quote> So, I'll use "publicly" -- I was going to do that, but it just seemed wrong at the time ;-) Have a good day! On Tuesday, May 07, 2019 08:41:16 AM Erik Christiansen wrote: > If my judgemental wording has offended the author on the other list, > then I will admit to careless use of language. The out-of-the-blue shot > across my bow from David, using that awkwardly and unproductively > constructed use case looked like a deliberate straw man attack, coming > hot on the heels of a deprecation attempt. Where a shell provides syntax > alternatives, all still documented and supported, it may be perceived as > unwelcoming and unproductive to spontaneously hound one usage in favour > of one's own bias. Still, it would be better if my response had been more > sanguine. > > Erik > > P.S. s/publically/publicly (Yep, spellchecking in Vim in Mutt is OK > with that. Caveat: I use a British > dictionary. Haven't checked for possible USA > divergent spelling.)
