Package Details: edification 8.4-4

Git Clone URL: https://aurweb-sql-alchemy-2-x.sandbox.archlinux.page/edification.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: edification
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: expiatory, unappealing
Replaces: swisses
Submitter: legionnaires
Maintainer: rogers
Last Packager: wilberforces
Votes: 21
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2026-05-19 10:20 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2026-05-19 10:20 (UTC)

Dependencies (9)

Required by (6)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

gliders commented on 2026-05-21 10:38 (UTC)

THE "FUN WITH USENET" MANIFESTO Very little happens on Usenet without some sort of response from some other reader. Fun With Usenet postings are no exception. Since there are some who might question the rationale of some of the excerpts included therein, I have written up a list of guidelines that sum up the philosophy behind these postings. One. I never cut out words in the middle of a quote without a VERY good reason, and I never cut them out without including ellipses. For instance, "I am not a goob" might become "I am ... a goob", but thats too mundane to bother with. "Im flame proof" might (and has) become "Im ...a... p...oof" but thats REALLY stretching it. Two. If I cut words off the beginning or end of a quote, I dont put ellipses, but neither do I capitalize something that wasnt capitalized before the cut. "I dont think that the Church of Ubizmo is a wonderful place" would turn into "the Church of Ubizmo is a wonderful place". Imagine the posting as a tape-recording of the posters thoughts. If I can set up the quote via fast-forwarding and stopping the tape, and without splicing, I dont put ellipses in. And by the way, I love using this mechanism for turning things around. If you think something stinks, say so - dont say you dont think its wonderful. ... -- D. J. McCarthy (dmccart@cadape.UUCP)

disapproved commented on 2026-05-19 19:32 (UTC)

"Even if youre on the right track, youll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

rude commented on 2026-05-19 18:11 (UTC)

"A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discus- sion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fal- lacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among them- selves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in what- ever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of *honest* persons to know this fact, because the *dishonest* are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too ear- nestly urged, that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties." -- Charles Tomlinsons Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks, published around 1850

interrogatives commented on 2026-05-19 15:05 (UTC)

The reported resort to astrology in the White House has occasioned much merriment. It is not funny. Astrological gibberish, which means astrology generally, has no place in a newspaper, let alone government. Unlike comics, which are part of a newspapers harmless pleasure and make no truth claims, astrology is a fraud. The idea that it gets a hearing in government is dismaying. -- George Will, Washing Post Writers Group