On Mar 29, 2003 at 11:23, Ravindra Jaju wrote: >The content of your mail *implied* that since UUASC does it, it's >a good model to follow. Hence the question. Otherwise, how is the >statement 'That's what UUASC does.' related to this post?
UUASC is a vaguely similar organisation. The method works for them. It may work for us. >But, if I am asking for forking with reasons, shouldn't you too give >reasons in support of your views? Doesn't it make sense? Your mail is Only if I want to _convince_ you :-) Splitting a list based on anything other than commercial/noncommercial does not make sense to me. The job split is the only concrete split that I can think of. How do you say whether a question is general or technical or what? A commercial message is easier to identify as being commercial. >Of course, to make things clear (as was implied in another mail), nothing >like a 'dogfight' here. Certainly not. Some people get strange ideas. >I think we have lost the art of arguing, assuming that arguing and confronting >are synonymous. No! That was a point I tried to make earlier. Forget confrontation, I didn't even want to argue. -- Satya. <URL:http://satya.virtualave.net/> Disks travel in packs. (/usr/games/fortune) -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
