spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

diversion okay: just mention it

To: spridgets@autox.team.net
Subject: diversion okay: just mention it
From: Mark Vanderlinden <mavanderlinden@dttus.com>
Date: 01 Jul 1999 10:11:18 -0500
Alternate-recipient: Allowed
Conversion: Allowed
Disclose-recipients: Prohibited
Original-encoded-information-types: IA5-Text
Reply-to: Mark Vanderlinden <mavanderlinden@dttus.com>
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
X400-content-type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
X400-mts-identifier: [/c=US/admd=TeleMail/prmd=Deloitte/; 06546377B8516135-MTAUSCNT1DT]
X400-originator: mavanderlinden@deloitte.com
X400-received: by ans2-pub.dttus.com (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:13:49 -0500
X400-received: by ans2-pub.dttus.com (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:13:49 -0500
X400-recipients: non-disclosure;
     
        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......

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>