On 13 Jul 2005 at 9:50, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Wow, I think that was a little uncalled for. Isn't the policy though > to label OT and TAN in the subject header?
Yes, for OT or TAN posts. Neither the Sibelius or the archiving threads are either OT or TAN. The Sibelius thread was about the future of Finale, since everything in it boiled down to comparisons to Finale and how it works. The archiving thread is neither OT or TAN. Some mailing lists use a META abbreviation to indicate threads that are on topics that are larger issues than the usual topic- specific discussion. I wish it had occurred to me to use the META tag when I posted the first message on the archiving issue. In any event, both threads exhibited good subject discipline, in that all the Sibelius threads included "Sibelius" in the subject, and the archiving thread was limited to two different subject headings, easily identifiable after seeing the first couple of messages. > Regardless, your comments are totally out of line in what a list is > supposed to be. Is there something wrong with people who subscribe to > a list, but don't post? I'm on a number of lists that I hardly ever > post to, but I find them valuable. But your attitude towards this guy > is outrageous. The problem is not the paucity of someone's posts. It's the nature of the posts that *have* been made, which on this subject seem pretty much limited to complaints about other people's posts. > I think when some of you guys go off on tangents, you need to label > them with OT or TAN. Most all the other lists I subscribe to do this. A post requesting that would have been a much useful addition to the list than mere complaints about the topics. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc All non-quoted content (c) David W. Fenton, all rights reserved _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
