How to add a shortcut to Send To in right click menu

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:55:22 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:57:55 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:44:30 -0500, Docster wrote:

Thanks to this response and all the other helpful responses I was able to
navigate to the Send To folder. Once I found it I attempted to right click
on my Recycle Bin to create a shortcut which I intended to drag into the
Send To folder.........the Recycle Bin has no option for a right click
Create Shortcut. Having hit this wall I copied the folder into the Send To
folder and an icon with correct name appeared, in the folder. To test I
right clicked on a desktop folder to see if I could send it to the recycle
bin only to find that when the right click of my mouse was executed the
Recycle Bin did not appear in the dialog menu block.
Is there something particular about the Recycle Bin?
Also how do I get the Documents and Settings on the C Drive to open? As the
owner and Administrator I don't quite understand how I can be denied access
to any folder!

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:45:06 -0500, "Docster"
wrote:

In all previous versions of windows I have been able to locate the root
Santo and add what ever shortcuts I wanted to. In Windows 7 this simple
process has been turned into a convoluted mess.
Can anyone provide the path to Send To and how I can add such shortcuts as
I
might choose e.g. one for recycle bin

Here is an excellent freeware tool that makes the task quite simple:

Send To Toys 2.7

http://www.gabrieleponti.com/software/#sendtotoys

AND

Here are some instructions for doing it manually:

http://lifehacker.com/5640841/edit-t...rd-party-tools

Why not just use the Delete button to send an item to the Recycle Bin?

Just don't configure your deletes to be unconditional.

Yes that's what I do for large-scale narrowing of selections. But
it's too easy to forget a recycled single or few items.

Translation?

I can't figure out what you mean by either of those sentences.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/19/2015 5:44 PM, Docster wrote:
Thanks to this response and all the other helpful responses I was able to
navigate to the Send To folder. Once I found it I attempted to right click
on my Recycle Bin to create a shortcut which I intended to drag into the
Send To folder.........the Recycle Bin has no option for a right click
Create Shortcut. Having hit this wall I copied the folder into the Send To
folder and an icon with correct name appeared, in the folder. To test I
right clicked on a desktop folder to see if I could send it to the recycle
bin only to find that when the right click of my mouse was executed the
Recycle Bin did not appear in the dialog menu block.
Is there something particular about the Recycle Bin?
Also how do I get the Documents and Settings on the C Drive to open? As the
owner and Administrator I don't quite understand how I can be denied access
to any folder!




"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:45:06 -0500, "Docster"
wrote:

In all previous versions of windows I have been able to locate the root
Santo and add what ever shortcuts I wanted to. In Windows 7 this simple
process has been turned into a convoluted mess.
Can anyone provide the path to Send To and how I can add such shortcuts as
I
might choose e.g. one for recycle bin

Here is an excellent freeware tool that makes the task quite simple:

Send To Toys 2.7

http://www.gabrieleponti.com/software/#sendtotoys


AND

Here are some instructions for doing it manually:

http://lifehacker.com/5640841/edit-t...rd-party-tools


Given how crowded the SendTo menu appears to me, I would rather not have
the Recycle Bin there. It would be too easy to delete something that I
don't want to delete. The main pull-down context menu has its entries
with slightly larger vertical spacing, which reduces the likelihood that
I will select Delete by mistake. In any case, to reach the SendTo menu,
I must get the main context menu, which already has Delete.

--
David E. Ross

The Crimea is Putin's Sudetenland.
The Ukraine will be Putin's Czechoslovakia.
See http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PutinUkraine.html.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:20:33 -0500, Docster wrote:
What is a symbolic link? This is a new term for me.

It's one of NTFS feature. It's similar like an LNK shortcut file, but it
works at file system (or driver) level. It acts as a transparent redirector
or a mapper to a file/folder. IOTW, it provides an alternative path to the
same file system object. More info can be found on Wikipedia or MSDN site.

e.g. you can make a symlink in "C:\" named as "Drive_E" that points to
"E:\". When you browse or CD-ed (from the command prompt) to "C:\Drive_E",
it'll look like you're there, but actually, you've browsed or gone to "E:\".
So the contents of "C:\Drive_E" is the contents of "E:\".

If you have a file named "notes.txt" in "E:\", and use Notepad to open
"C:\Drive_E\notes.txt", Notepad will open it as "C:\Drive_E\notes.txt", but
actually, it opened "E:\notes.txt". Any changes made to that file will be
applied to "E:\notes.txt".

There'll be like two identical files/folders, but there's only one actually.
The one that's pointed by the symlink target. Symlinks will be treated like
the target that it points to.

I haven't used Windows Vista and newer versions extensively. i.e. how the
shell handles symlinks when they are being deleted. Cause you might
accidentally delete the contents of the symlink target folder when all you
wanted is to delete the symlink itself.

Under NTFS, if a file's data is small enough (about 500 bytes or so), it
will be placed in its own NTFS file record. It won't need a disk cluster
unless it needed one before (in case te file size is shirnked). A symlink's
data is merely a path name with a short data header, which is small enough
to be placed in its own NTFS file record, in most cases. An LNK shortcut
file however, is too large in most cases.

| I haven't used Windows Vista and newer versions extensively. i.e. how the
| shell handles symlinks when they are being deleted. Cause you might
| accidentally delete the contents of the symlink target folder when all you
| wanted is to delete the symlink itself.
|

The whole idea undermines the fundamental logic
of the file system, which is to provide an ordered,
hierarchical storage metaphor. Even the fake folders
for backward compatibility are very confusing and
unnecessary. (There was no excuse for changing
system paths like AppData in the first place. Beyond
that, there was no excuse for catering to programmers
who relied on hardcoded paths. Their software *should*
fail because they wrote it wrong, ignoring even the
most basic rules of writing Windows software.)

Symlinks, hardlinks.... I still don't really get it, nor do
I want to. It's a very bad idea that needs to be dropped.
Likewise with "redirection" in the Registry, which isn't
really redirection but is rather just plain old lying.

It's created a situation where it's difficult to
understand what's real and what isn't. That makes the
implications of one's actions uncertain. Many people
have trouble enough understanding the file system as
it is. It was supposed to be an intuitive take-off on file
cabinets and papers, but that metaphor only goes so
far. It reflects the functionality but not the process of
actual usage. That is, it's a good metaphor for how
computer files are used, but knowing how to store papers
in file cabinets does nothing to prepare one for using
a computer. Add to that someone's "bright idea" to
break the metaphor, so that the cabinets and folders
no longer correspond to cabinets or folders, and the
system becomes truly incomprehensible to most people.

I posted quotes recently showing that the Microsofties
have even confused themselves with their fake folders,
in regard to what's real and what isn't in the winsxs folder:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...isk-space.aspx

Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky and his assistant say: ...nearly every
file in the WinSxS directory is a "hard link" to the physical files
elsewhere on the system-meaning that the files are not actually in this
directory. ...The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical
system it is about 400MB.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/a...-so-large.aspx

The "Windows Server Core Team" says: All of the components in the operating
system are found in the WinSxS folder - in fact we call this location the
component store. ...The WinSxS folder is the only location that the
component is found on the system, all other instances of the files that you
see on the system are "projected" by hard linking from the component store.

Actually, neither explanation makes sense. As I understand
it, winsxs is supposed to be acting as a backup location. If
it's really nothing but a mirage -- or if all other system files
are nothing but a mirage -- then winsxs serves no purpose
and isn't backing up anything.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:05:07 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

The whole idea undermines the fundamental logic
of the file system, which is to provide an ordered,
hierarchical storage metaphor. Even the fake folders
for backward compatibility are very confusing and
unnecessary. (There was no excuse for changing
system paths like AppData in the first place. Beyond
that, there was no excuse for catering to programmers
who relied on hardcoded paths. Their software *should*
fail because they wrote it wrong, ignoring even the
most basic rules of writing Windows software.)

I could understand why the old "Documents and Settings" folder (and a few
others) in Vista+ is made as a symlink, but what I don't understand is why
did Microsoft made it accessible only for the SYSTEM account? IIRC, it's not
even accessible by an elevated user.

Symlinks, hardlinks.... I still don't really get it, nor do
I want to. It's a very bad idea that needs to be dropped.
Likewise with "redirection" in the Registry, which isn't
really redirection but is rather just plain old lying.

Well, those are basically shortcuts. Just like the LNK shortcut file that
point to a folder or file. Each has its own purpose, advantages, and
disadvantages. But yes, they can be confusing.

It's created a situation where it's difficult to
understand what's real and what isn't. That makes the
implications of one's actions uncertain. Many people
have trouble enough understanding the file system as
it is. It was supposed to be an intuitive take-off on file
cabinets and papers, but that metaphor only goes so
far. It reflects the functionality but not the process of
actual usage. That is, it's a good metaphor for how
computer files are used, but knowing how to store papers
in file cabinets does nothing to prepare one for using
a computer. Add to that someone's "bright idea" to
break the metaphor, so that the cabinets and folders
no longer correspond to cabinets or folders, and the
system becomes truly incomprehensible to most people.

Ever since 64-bit Windows came, things started to get messy with hackish
adoption of 64-bit platform.

I posted quotes recently showing that the Microsofties
have even confused themselves with their fake folders,
in regard to what's real and what isn't in the winsxs folder:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...isk-space.aspx

That was fun to read.

Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky and his assistant say: ...nearly every
file in the WinSxS directory is a "hard link" to the physical files
elsewhere on the system-meaning that the files are not actually in this
directory. ...The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical
system it is about 400MB.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/a...-so-large.aspx

When it comes to hardlinks, the physical file can be everywhere at the same
time. A hard link is merely a file record that point to the same file data
(the disk cluster; not the file path). Once a hardlink is created, the
target file will also become hardlink (i.e. hardlinked file). When hardlinks
in different folders are deleted one by one, the last surviving one will
become the pysical file - where ever it is.

A file symlink is different. It's actually a file that has no data, but with
internal data (metadata) that contains the path of the target file.

The "Windows Server Core Team" says: All of the components in the operating
system are found in the WinSxS folder - in fact we call this location the
component store. ...The WinSxS folder is the only location that the
component is found on the system, all other instances of the files that you
see on the system are "projected" by hard linking from the component store.

Actually, neither explanation makes sense. As I understand
it, winsxs is supposed to be acting as a backup location. If
it's really nothing but a mirage -- or if all other system files
are nothing but a mirage -- then winsxs serves no purpose
and isn't backing up anything.

The WinSxS folder is originally designed to store different versions of the
same DLL. So lo and behold, the fact that Microsoft products aren't actually
backward compatible.

That folder is never designed for backup location. In Windows XP, it's the
DllCache and DriverCache folders that store the backup files. But it seems
to me that Microsoft have dumped the backup folder and made WinSxS folder as
file repository for both used files (the same purpose of the original WinSxS
folder), and for files that aren't used yet (as ready-to-use-or-install
folder).

IOTW, the OS installer put almost every executable modules into that folder
except for device drivers. As for device drivers, it puts them into the
"Driver Store" folder - outside the WinSxS folder.

The fact that the files in the WinSxS folder are almost entirely consist of
hardlink files, and the absence of the backup folder, if a system file is
infected by a malware or got corrupted, from where does the OS restore the
file? Cause if you modify a hardlinked file, the changes will also apply to
the other hardlinks that point to the same file data. So if the file in the
SYSTEM32 folder is changed, the one in the WinSxS folder will also changed.
Does Vista+ system file protection use System Restore as part of the
protection mechanism? Without any backup file at all?

This is so much more than I needed and really far afield from my original
question/post.
What I really want to know is how do or can I create a link to Recycle Bin
in my Send To right click action.
It appears that even when I create a copy of the RB in Send To in accordance
with some of the earlier instructions it does not show up in the right click
option block. Is there something peculiar about RB.
Another thing I noticed is that there is not option to CreateShortCut.

"JJ" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:05:07 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

The whole idea undermines the fundamental logic
of the file system, which is to provide an ordered,
hierarchical storage metaphor. Even the fake folders
for backward compatibility are very confusing and
unnecessary. (There was no excuse for changing
system paths like AppData in the first place. Beyond
that, there was no excuse for catering to programmers
who relied on hardcoded paths. Their software *should*
fail because they wrote it wrong, ignoring even the
most basic rules of writing Windows software.)

I could understand why the old "Documents and Settings" folder (and a few
others) in Vista+ is made as a symlink, but what I don't understand is why
did Microsoft made it accessible only for the SYSTEM account? IIRC, it's not
even accessible by an elevated user.

Symlinks, hardlinks.... I still don't really get it, nor do
I want to. It's a very bad idea that needs to be dropped.
Likewise with "redirection" in the Registry, which isn't
really redirection but is rather just plain old lying.

Well, those are basically shortcuts. Just like the LNK shortcut file that
point to a folder or file. Each has its own purpose, advantages, and
disadvantages. But yes, they can be confusing.

It's created a situation where it's difficult to
understand what's real and what isn't. That makes the
implications of one's actions uncertain. Many people
have trouble enough understanding the file system as
it is. It was supposed to be an intuitive take-off on file
cabinets and papers, but that metaphor only goes so
far. It reflects the functionality but not the process of
actual usage. That is, it's a good metaphor for how
computer files are used, but knowing how to store papers
in file cabinets does nothing to prepare one for using
a computer. Add to that someone's "bright idea" to
break the metaphor, so that the cabinets and folders
no longer correspond to cabinets or folders, and the
system becomes truly incomprehensible to most people.

Ever since 64-bit Windows came, things started to get messy with hackish
adoption of 64-bit platform.

I posted quotes recently showing that the Microsofties
have even confused themselves with their fake folders,
in regard to what's real and what isn't in the winsxs folder:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...isk-space.aspx

That was fun to read.

Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky and his assistant say: ...nearly every
file in the WinSxS directory is a "hard link" to the physical files
elsewhere on the system-meaning that the files are not actually in this
directory. ...The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a
typical
system it is about 400MB.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/a...-so-large.aspx

When it comes to hardlinks, the physical file can be everywhere at the same
time. A hard link is merely a file record that point to the same file data
(the disk cluster; not the file path). Once a hardlink is created, the
target file will also become hardlink (i.e. hardlinked file). When hardlinks
in different folders are deleted one by one, the last surviving one will
become the pysical file - where ever it is.

A file symlink is different. It's actually a file that has no data, but with
internal data (metadata) that contains the path of the target file.

The "Windows Server Core Team" says: All of the components in the
operating
system are found in the WinSxS folder - in fact we call this location the
component store. ...The WinSxS folder is the only location that the
component is found on the system, all other instances of the files that
you
see on the system are "projected" by hard linking from the component
store.

Actually, neither explanation makes sense. As I understand
it, winsxs is supposed to be acting as a backup location. If
it's really nothing but a mirage -- or if all other system files
are nothing but a mirage -- then winsxs serves no purpose
and isn't backing up anything.

The WinSxS folder is originally designed to store different versions of the
same DLL. So lo and behold, the fact that Microsoft products aren't actually
backward compatible.

That folder is never designed for backup location. In Windows XP, it's the
DllCache and DriverCache folders that store the backup files. But it seems
to me that Microsoft have dumped the backup folder and made WinSxS folder as
file repository for both used files (the same purpose of the original WinSxS
folder), and for files that aren't used yet (as ready-to-use-or-install
folder).

IOTW, the OS installer put almost every executable modules into that folder
except for device drivers. As for device drivers, it puts them into the
"Driver Store" folder - outside the WinSxS folder.

The fact that the files in the WinSxS folder are almost entirely consist of
hardlink files, and the absence of the backup folder, if a system file is
infected by a malware or got corrupted, from where does the OS restore the
file? Cause if you modify a hardlinked file, the changes will also apply to
the other hardlinks that point to the same file data. So if the file in the
SYSTEM32 folder is changed, the one in the WinSxS folder will also changed.
Does Vista+ system file protection use System Restore as part of the
protection mechanism? Without any backup file at all?

--
To be considerate of my contacts and friends, their email addresses have
been hidden by putting them in the 'BCC' address area.
All email addresses shown on the original message were also removed before
the message was forwarded.

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor, and campaign
funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:20:33 -0500, Docster wrote:
What is a symbolic link? This is a new term for me.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:19:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I need to go into those folders frequently, while the
design is tediously convoluted and overproduced,
so it's worth having a shortcut to at least save
some of the travel required to get there.

Third and a half idea...
Better is you use a junction or a symbolic link.
It won't cost you a single cluster.


You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail versions 15 and 16 have a
quoting style that is completely broken. Unfortunately that
poses a painful choice to you: either fix every quote manually,
or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews, and Forte
Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment). OR,
if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve.

(I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you can un-break WLM 15
by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
But why spend time patching a broken tool?)

Thanks for your consideration!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:36:08 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:20:33 -0500, Docster wrote:
What is a symbolic link? This is a new term for me.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:19:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I need to go into those folders frequently, while the
design is tediously convoluted and overproduced,
so it's worth having a shortcut to at least save
some of the travel required to get there.

Third and a half idea...
Better is you use a junction or a symbolic link.
It won't cost you a single cluster.


You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail versions 15 and 16 have a
quoting style that is completely broken. Unfortunately that
poses a painful choice to you: either fix every quote manually,
or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews, and Forte
Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment). OR,
if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve.

(I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you can un-break WLM 15
by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
But why spend time patching a broken tool?)

Thanks for your consideration!

Yeah, I was just reading one of his replies and I started thinking a lot
of what he said was strangely familiar. At that point I quickly realized
that his quoting style was at fault.

I also can't figure out what he has against the Delete button *and* the
Delete entry in the context menu. They do *precisely* what he wants, or
at least what he *says* he wants, but he won't accept them.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:35:17 -0500, Docster wrote:
What I really want to know is how do or can I create a link to Recycle Bin
in my Send To right click action.


I think the question of "how" must be preceded by the question of
"why", since Delete is already in the right-click menu.

And of course you can always left-click and drag items to the Recycle
Bin.

Could you perhaps enlighten us as to why you feel the need for an
additional pathway?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:35:17 -0500, Docster wrote:
This is so much more than I needed and really far afield from my original
question/post.
What I really want to know is how do or can I create a link to Recycle Bin
in my Send To right click action.
It appears that even when I create a copy of the RB in Send To in accordance
with some of the earlier instructions it does not show up in the right click
option block. Is there something peculiar about RB.
Another thing I noticed is that there is not option to CreateShortCut.

If right-clicking the RecycleBin doesn't give you the "Create shortcut" menu
item, try dragging the RecycleBin into the SendTo folder. i.e.:

1. Press Win+R keyboard shortcut to open the Run dialog.

2. In that dialog, type in "%appdata%\microsoft\windows\sendto" then press
OK to open the SendTo folder using Windows Explorer.

3. Drag and drop the RecycleBin on the desktop into the SendTo folder
contents on Windows Explorer.

If step#3 this doesn't work, try using the right mouse button for the drag
and drop. When you drop it, there should be a popup menu with "Create
shortcut here" menu item. Click that and you're done. If you don't see that
menu item, then something is wrong with your system. It could be a broken
setting for the RecycleBin shell object (in the registry), or there could be
third party shell extension that interfered.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:36:08 -0500, Stan Brown
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:20:33 -0500, Docster wrote:
What is a symbolic link? This is a new term for me.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:19:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I need to go into those folders frequently, while the
design is tediously convoluted and overproduced,
so it's worth having a shortcut to at least save
some of the travel required to get there.

Third and a half idea...
Better is you use a junction or a symbolic link.
It won't cost you a single cluster.


You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail versions 15 and 16 have a
quoting style that is completely broken.


But he was using Windows Live Mail *14*. Is that broken too? I thought
it wasn't, but perhaps I've remembered wrong.


Unfortunately that
poses a painful choice to you: either fix every quote manually,
or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews, and Forte
Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment). OR,
if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve.

(I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you can un-break WLM 15
by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
But why spend time patching a broken tool?)


As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how someone using Windows Live
Mail un-breaks the quotes, as long as he fixes it and doesn't send
messages where who said what is hard to understand. And if likes other
things about the product, patching the broken tool may be worth his
while.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 07:38:18 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
But he was using Windows Live Mail *14*. Is that broken too? I thought
it wasn't, but perhaps I've remembered wrong.


Hmm -- it looked like WLM-style quoting, and I saw WLM in the
headers, but I failed to notice the version. I don't think 14 was
broken in that way -- maybe this was an avatar of Mayayana, who just
misquotes to be annoying.


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:23:26 +0700, JJ wrote:

2. In that dialog, type in "%appdata%\microsoft\windows\sendto" then press
OK to open the SendTo folder using Windows Explorer.

Or if you're lazy, "shell:sendto" works OK in the Run dialog. Except
maybe for me - I have trouble remembering it.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:17:51 -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:23:26 +0700, JJ wrote:

2. In that dialog, type in "%appdata%\microsoft\windows\sendto" then press
OK to open the SendTo folder using Windows Explorer.

Or if you're lazy, "shell:sendto" works OK in the Run dialog. Except
maybe for me - I have trouble remembering it.

I posted about that a day or so ago. You mighgt want to bookmark my
page:

http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/7tip.htm

It has a bunch of things like that that I'd never remember otherwise.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:40:22 -0500, Stan Brown
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 07:38:18 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
But he was using Windows Live Mail *14*. Is that broken too? I thought
it wasn't, but perhaps I've remembered wrong.


Hmm -- it looked like WLM-style quoting, and I saw WLM in the
headers, but I failed to notice the version. I don't think 14 was
broken in that way -- maybe this was an avatar of Mayayana, who just
misquotes to be annoying.



LOL! Maybe so.