Snit
On 9/23/16, 8:11 AM, in article ns3gm9$1s5$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>wrote:

Peter Kohlmann
Snit wrote:

Snit
On 9/23/16, 7:16 AM, in article fhjgi0ag.4uu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>wrote:

Octavian W. Lagrange
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
[Reposted because it completely rips your claims apart and, gee, for [some reason you skipped it. I expect you will never give a real response.]

Octavian W. Lagrange
..

Snit
This was just completely wrong of him! And he went on and on with this nonsense:

Owl: ----- Script 1 thinks "Window 1" is the one connected to 10.0.1.2. Script 2 thinks "Window 1" is the one connected to 192.168.1.3. See a problem yet? -----

He was just NOT getting it! The script does not own the terminal's window 1!

Octavian W. Lagrange
So you *still* don't see the problem with your broken code.

Snit
I think the bigger question is you have yet to figure out the benefit of referencing by ID instead of index. You have yet to even show you understand the window 1 of terminal is not owned by the script but by terminal.

Peter Kohlmann
Red Herring. That "window 1" is owned by terminal was never in contention.

Snit
Except by Owl. Sure. As I quoted and showed.