🚀 go-pugleaf

>> This, to me, is one of the strongest reasons why I don't use or like WYSIWYG.
>> I prefer to concentrate on what my words say, and not on what they look like,
>> and I want a display that will not distract me with glittery appearance
>> while I am working on content.
> 
> I'll second the motion.  Truman Capote once dismissed a Jack Kerouac work with
> the comment "That's not writing--that's typing."  Too often these days, the
> appropriate translation would be "That's not writing--that's typography."
> --
> 	UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado    ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA
> 	DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks

I would like to think "content" is a given, hence, this is a "motherhood"
statement.  Again, Brian surprised me with his "strongest" reason.  I
felt it rather weak: sort of like "I like fast computing" but implicit
is that the "results" are correct and reliable.  Hence, you set up a strawman.

Now, the comments about renumbering sections when things are modified are
good valid augments [note: I learned WYLBUR and BRAVO before I learned anything
like troff or TeX or saw Scribe].  Since "CONTENT" is my main concern, why
don't you (Brian): flame a bit about other aids like Writer's Work Bench
(even just simple spelling checkers), or outlining tools like ThinkTank,
or NLS or better Tioga in Cedar.  How can computers help me structure
and formulate incomplete ideas rather than flame against WYSIWYG systems.
I would be interested in you had to say.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA