XPost: alt.windows7.general   
   From: address@is.invalid   
      
   Vanguard,   
      
   >> Mistake.  As reading this thread about how wordpad (doesn't) deals   
   >> with its underlying document should have shown you (there is no   
   >> "handle" it keeps).   
   >   
   > No process can open a file to read or write without first creating   
   > (open) a file handle (descriptor) on it.   
      
   True.   
      
   But what has that to do with what I said in the quote of mine just above   
   your response ?   
      
   Or do you want me to post some very factual information to how plants grow   
   and demand that you accept it as proof that what you said is wrong ?   And   
   yes, what you did there is as silly.   
      
   > "signals that the editor's content were change".  That's the dirty bit,   
   > change flag, or whatever term you want to use.   
      
   Ah yes, that was where you tried to conflate changes of the file and of the   
   contents of the editor.   
      
   Pray tell, *why* did you come up with the above ?  Where did I mention that   
   was of any concern to me ?   And yes, I expect you to quote it.   
      
   >> And that was told to me (by you or anyone else) ... where ?   
   >   
   > How about EVERYTHING that has participated here telling you   
   > about workarounds   
      
   It could have multiple reasons, with one of them none of the posters*   
   knowing nothing about the commandline arguments of wordpad.   
      
   * excluding J. P. and possibly Paul ofcourse. :-)   
      
   > instead of the miraculous command-line arguments you WISH   
   > Wordpad had?   
      
   Again, quote where I said that I /wished/, or as you try to make it sound   
   like /demanded/ they (multiple?) would be available.  Why ?   
      
   You see, as far as I can tell I asked "Is there a way to override this   
   behaviour using a command-line argument ?".  Yes, a simple 'does it exist?'   
   question.   
      
   No, you /again/ tried to wrangle something simple I said in something it has   
   never been.  And that reflects poorly on you.   
      
   >>> The root of the problem is Wordpad is   
   >>   
   >> (that it)   
   >>   
   >>> has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p),   
   >>   
   >> Nice to see you contradict yourself in a single line. :-)   
   >   
   > You're not only uber pendantic,   
      
   Maybe you should not have tried to claim I said stuff I never have, cause   
   that triggers my 'read extra carefully' mode, which also captures stuff like   
   the above.   
      
   IOW: you don't like it ?  You know how to fix it.   
      
   > but want to omit that exclusions   
   > can be specified in a rule.   
      
   The thing is that I didn't ask for exclusions. I asked for an existence.   
   Which /should/ have been simple to answer.  But obviously not for you...   
      
   > wordpad.exe [/p]    
   >   
   > That's it.  That's all you get.  Nothing more.   
      
   Yeah, you also said that in another post.   
      
   The problem with that is that I both have different information, as well as   
   knowing that some commands/programs have "hidden" arguments.   
      
   And yes, I was hoping that perhaps wordpad would have such a hidden   
   argument.  Perhaps a far-fetched hope, but as they say, "if you don't shoot   
   you will never hit the target".  Why do you think my question was so concise   
   ?   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)