I'll betcha the people who are only interested in the technical stuff will
still sneak a peek at the non-technical stuff. After all, being human means
being curious.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Miller <millerls@ado13.com>
To: Mark Vanderlinden <mavanderlinden@dttus.com>; spridgets@autox.team.net
<spridgets@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, July 01, 1999 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Was "diversion okay: just mention it" Now (NTC)
>Maybe we need to use something like "NTC" in the subject for posts relating
>to Spridgets but with "no technical content". Members not interested in
what
>others did last weekend could skip those along with the "No LBC" posts.
>
>As for me, I read everything, but then I live vicariously through the lives
>of others ;-)
>
>Larry Miller
>http://www.ado13.com
>Seen It All, Done It All, Can't Remember Most Of It.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mark Vanderlinden <mavanderlinden@dttus.com>
>To: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 8:11 AM
>Subject: diversion okay: just mention it
>
>
>>
>>
>> For what it is worth, here are my 2 cts.
>>
>> After just returning from vacation, I racked up about 650 emails from the
>list.
>> It helps to browse through that people mention "no lbc" in the subject
>line.
>> They could be deleted at immediately.
>>
>> So maybe it is a good idea that when diversion occurs, the diverter
>mentions "no
>> lbc" in the subject line. This way, those who want can still talk about
>their
>> children, weekend escapades etc, whilst the ones that are here solely for
>the
>> technical content can skip those messages.
>>
>> What do you think out there?
>>
>> Mark
>> It does not have to be black or white, with the above method we could
make
>> everybody happy.
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: You must be joking, was...the last straw.
>> Author: RBHouston@aol.com at Internet-USA
>> Date: 6/30/99 1:40 PM
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 6/30/99 4:02:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> pixelsmith@gerardsgarage.com writes:
>>
>> << At 6:07 PM -0400 6/29/99, RBHouston@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >AWWW, if it wasn't Frank, Ed, or Mike, who cares?
>>
>>
>> Nice to know the rest of us count too. Maybe we should request re-naming
>> the list to "Frank_Ed_Mike@autox.team.net
>>
>> I didn't realize this list was the exclusive domain of the three of
>fellows
>> you mention and you. You obviously don't really think this is a public
>> forum for the open exchange of information, unless it comes from those
>> you've designated and "appointed" is the informed. Maybe you haven't
>> noticed, but there are others who've contributed plenty, and aren't
>hanging
>> around for the exclusive wisdom of who you consider the "three wise men"
>>
>> There are a lot of very decent guys/gals on this list who extend
>themselves
>> both on this list and "offline" and most of them don't waste their time
>> with all the diversions, remaining silent and spending lots of time with
>> that delete key (125 in 2 days). If it wasn't for them, I wouldn't stick
>> around either... Yeah, spare me, I know, "who cares".
>>
>> I can only hope you were joking because if you weren't, this is the most
>> arrogant attitude I've ever encountered on a mail list. I wouldn't be
>> surprised if several others dropped off the list after reading your
>remark
>> as well... but then you'd have the exclusive club you seem to desire.
>Ever
>> read "Lord of the Flies"?
>>
>> I know it's too much to hope this won't start another diversion, but
your
>> comment is is overboard, inconsiderate and undeserved... so flame away.
>>
>> If everyone enjoyed the the endless diversion and nonsense, you wouldn't
>> find yourself spending so much bandwidth defending it. For those of you
>who
>> agree with me, now's the time to speak up.
>>
>> Gerard
>>
>> >>
>> Gerard...down, easy big fella...since you like reading so much, I suggest
>the
>> dictionary...start with the word "irony" (did I spell that right?)
>>
>> Robert Houston
>> Willing to discuss anything for a laugh......
>>
|