Re^2: Shouldn't enc2xs always be included as part of Encode?

Given the amiable, breezy nature of the commentary it might seem odd that it's downvoted, even malicious or personal. It has been said so and I expect will again.

To put that to rest: when this answer is read for comprehension and stripped of everything irrelevant to the original question—all the semantic fugu deflated—it reads–

You never can tell and mistakes happen. I solved this with Perl. Sometimes system tools.

Comment on Re^2: Shouldn't enc2xs always be included as part of Encode?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Shouldn't enc2xs always be included as part of Encode? by stonecolddevin (Parson) on Oct 07, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
With a little elbow grease you could make that into a haiku. Or something from horse_ebooks (rip) Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax, you're god damn right I'm living in the fucking past	[reply]
Re^3: Shouldn't enc2xs always be included as part of Encode? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 07, 2017 at 08:25 UTC
You never can tell and mistakes happen. I solved this with Perl. Sometimes system tools. it actually means i paid for a solution (It is spampoop)	[reply]