🚀 go-pugleaf

"It is trollishly silly of you to go on and on about this animal if you don't care about it or have a use for it." You really haven't been paying attention, have you? I have been going on, not about MU per se, but about your attempts to dismiss other's desires by referring to them in terms such as inefficient, writing crap, and mindlessly moving text, instead of dealing with the issues. 

"Certainly, it seems illogical to mindlessly accept the belief of others that they _need_ multiple undo when that feature could impede your workflow ..." It remains to be proved that MU would have any such deleterious effects on my or your workflow, so why should I use that as a basis for trying to convince others they don't need it? If that is the likely cost, then it would affect my workflow and I would be concerned about that, but we don't know that this would be the case. But that also cuts both ways: it seems illogical to mindlessly accept the need for MU merely to satisfy some users whose need you question when that feature could impede your workflow, by slowing down the product, sucking up resources, or by using up resources that could have been used to fix some other FrameMaker issue that you run into regularly. 

How did my posts indicate a need for MU? Exactly where did I indicate this? Please quote. And where do you find "an approach to your writing that seemed chaotic and whimsical"? Again, please quote. By the by, what writing are you talking about? I don't write in my job.  

As for chaotic and whimsical, how about you posting that you agree with various statements and then asking me who you were supposed to be agreeing with? Or asking whether I thought that people who want multiple-undo are font twiddlers, when that was what you had posted? 

I leave the best for last: you tell me "you should keep an open mind". That you don't see the irony in this speaks volumes, Sean. 

Dominic