[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real
From: |
Clint Laskowski |
Subject: |
Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:54:38 -0500 |
You got me! April Fools!
-- Clint (aka Carsten)
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Sven Bretfeld <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > The important point I would like to make here is that for all
> > intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper!
>
> Here is what I think: Carsten *is* Clint!
>
> This was a very well planned, long prepared, identity-shifting and,
> indeed, very nasty April's joke.
>
> I'm reminded on the philosopher Paul Riccoer, who stated that words
> cease to be controlled by the speaker as soon as he writes them down
> and, thereby, makes them subject to interpretation. I think I was the
> first one to bring up the issue of complexity in the org/taskpaper
> thread. I never wanted to complain about this. In fact, I like it that
> way, because coping with complexity creates new ideas from time to
> time, even for a simple user. Since I use Org-mode (for more than a
> year now) I have learned many new features that I would miss very
> much, the table editor being one of them. I deem it an absolutely
> meaningful feature within a task management system, since it allows
> one to store a certain type of "reference material" (as David Allen
> would term it) directly in connection with associated projects. Great!
>
> I didn't take a look at the new ++ schedules and, so far, have no idea
> what they are for. But sooner or later I will come across a posting in
> this list, that will produce a new idea how this feature could make my
> life a little more easy. I'm sure about that. This is how a non-geek
> like myself makes use of complexity: slowly growing into it. And this
> is one of the main reasons why I read this list.
>
> By the way, I don't think that many newcomers are terrified by the
> complexity of Org-mode. Who -- as a non-geek newbee -- reads through
> the code and notices its complexity at all? They hear of it by a short
> howto on the web, download the package and start using it according to
> the howto. Gradually, as they read more and more pages of the manual,
> they become acquainted with the more subtle functions. Am I right?
>
> Thanks a lot for creating Org-mode
>
> Sven
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
>
--
-- Clint
Clint Laskowski, CISSP
address@hidden
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, (continued)
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Carsten Dominik, 2008/04/07
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Joel J. Adamson, 2008/04/03
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Rick Moynihan, 2008/04/03
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Carsten Dominik, 2008/04/04
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Jason F. McBrayer, 2008/04/03
Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Sven Bretfeld, 2008/04/01
- Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real,
Clint Laskowski <=
Re: [Orgmode] Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real, Tim O'Callaghan, 2008/04/03