On 27 Aug 2005 at 21:35, Ken Moore wrote:
> The best way to run a list is to expect the contributors to be
> moderate themselves, excluding them, after due warning, if they
> transgress persistently.
That's all well and good, and something that we can all agree on.
But it's completely orthogonal
Karen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly, I have subscribed to lists where the moderators are way far
> the other direction...everything gets policed and they are always
> stepping in. That can be a real drag
I quite agree. I left the mailing list of the Society for Musical
Analysis not
Phil Daley:
I has happened at least several times before, and Henry has always stepped
in and fixed the problem.
Thanks for that, but what's your point? There could be any number of
reasons why he's not been able to step in this time. I just hope nothing's
wrong.
I second what Bob is saying. I have an e-mail filter that is sending
all the auto respond messages to their own folder until the lister
comes back and sets things right. Not a big deal IMHOand
certainly a small inconvenience compared to the benefits I have
enjoyed due to the wonderf
The most aggravating part of unwelcome list msgs (autoreplies, spam,
etc.) is all the complaint threads that follow. If everyone would bite
his/her tongue when such nusiance msgs come thru we'd all be happier.
Henry is, after all, an intelligent adult. Why don't we trust him to do
his job when
At 8/26/2005 09:36 AM, Peter wrote:
>> It wouldn't be a problem if the list owner was doing his job.
>
>Darcy, I have to say I feel you are being unfair and unkind to Henry.
>Although I don't post frequently these days, I for one am very appreciative
>of the service he and his employers provide f
Darcy James Argue:
It wouldn't be a problem if the list owner was doing his job.
Darcy, I have to say I feel you are being unfair and unkind to Henry.
Although I don't post frequently these days, I for one am very appreciative
of the service he and his employers provide for us all. It's not
