##Yes, Nano

I would have entitled this piece "no thanks, emacs," but
due to over usage in situations where we are trying to
hide the intensity of our true feelings, it seems that
the term "no thanks" comes off sarcastic, and would seem
so even more as a title. Thus, rather than be negative,
the title is positive: yes, Nano, because it works for 
me.

Keeping in mind that I just use it to write prose and the
simplest of scripts, Nano is good enough for me. In fact,
Nano has a similarity to the codex book in that much of the
value comes not what is in it, but rather what is *not* in
it, and thus filtered out.

My life has been plagued with big pile ups of projects
began, but not moved along very far. Using Nano in the way
I do, with a one level of abstraction to outline, a tab
for an action-level to do  list, a place for the one piece
I am writing and one last tab for possible scripting forces
structure onto what I am doing.

I am afraid that Emacs would simply enable my tendency to
veer off in a bunch of directions. I get how powerful it can
be for writing code -- the demonstrations are mind-blowing -- 
but as it is I am sticking with minimalism.  

Blessed are those that emacs can save.  But I don't think I 
am of the Elect.