When I reply to an email, it uses annoying blue text. I can't see anyplace that I can turn that off. I have Outlook 2000. Does anyone know something about how to stop this annoying behavior? Regards, Alan

...did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends. McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent--and witting--disdain for the truth. Even after 38 ...

..." menu. • Emacs does not provide a user level function to create a new buffer. It has “Open file...” (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user save it it prompt a file name. Well, not exclusively. For instance, Xcode prompts for the type of file, ...

... it. This easily causes data loss. The other side of the argument is that *scratch* is intended for temporary, unimportant doodling, and for anybody who uses it this way, being continually prompted to save it would rapidly become annoying. I don't think there's a built in option to change this. However, you could write a hook function to add in this check. The hook is `kill-buffer-query-functions' and is documented in the Elisp manual...

....) • Emacs does not provide a user level function to create a new buffer. It has “Open file...” (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user save it it prompt a file name. If user closes it, it prompts for saving. In summary: the ...

... buffers.) • Emacs does not provide a user level function to create a new buffer. It has “Open file...” (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user save it it prompt a file name. If user closes it, it prompts for saving. In summary: the problem ...

... (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user... (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when ...

......” (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user ... (a wrapper to the find-file command), which immediately prompt user for a full file path. This is annoying. Modern apps's New File command actually just create a new untitled file without prompting, and only when user ...

...? I don't recall a lot of overlapping changes, but there were some. However, I also don't recall a lot of overlapping changes from the RCS era, when it seemed like I was always breaking locks. Minor annoyances stick in your mind. And I don't understand your metric for "typically" anyway. This was a rather disintegrated software system: just a bunch of Forth (LSE) definitions that did useful things. The tendency when adding new ...

...come from then? Is it a real folder or another of XP's aberrations? The <C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents> folder has the System attribute set, so Explorer reads Desktop.ini inside the folder. Huh! I never gave the *.ini's even a passing thought! Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. In my case at least. It was really starting to annoy me though. Thanks much! Twayne