Re: Netiquette on thread hijacking, was "thread policy"
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > I'll bite: What does Miss Manners say is the proper and courteous > way to perform a hijacking? Like the reevers, in _Glory Season_, maybe? ---David Yaargh, it's drivin' me nuts! Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette on thread hijacking, was "thread policy"
I'll bite: What does Miss Manners say is the proper and courteous way to perform a hijacking? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette on thread hijacking, was "thread policy"
William T Goodall wrote: > On 20 May 2008, at 12:16, Julia Thompson wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Hobby wrote: >> >>> Does anyone view the latter meaning of "thread >>> hijacking" as a problem? >> Yes. >> > > I see it as worse than misquoting since I can just stop reading the > posts of someone who misquotes all the time, whereas thread hijacking > messes up the threading of all the posts. William and everybody-- O.K., so it's bad for people who use threaded mailreaders. Sorry that I've probably done it in the past. It does not seem to be mentioned in the etiquette guide for the list: http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/etiquette.htm Should it be? ---David In reply to, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette (Was Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd be satisfied if he'd change the subject line when he changes the > > subject. Basic netiquette. > > > > You didn't change it either. Choose your reply: (1) That wouldn't have been as satisfying. - or (for bonus points) - (2) God distracted me. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette (Was Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?)
On 23 Feb 2008, at 16:20, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Warren Ockrassa wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to see you go for a week's worth of posts without once >>> mentioning religion. Think you could manage that kind of a >>> challenge? >>> >> I will pray for William so that he may resist this temptation. > > > I'd be satisfied if he'd change the subject line when he changes the > subject. Basic netiquette. > You didn't change it either. Pot / Kettle Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Netiquette
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of William T Goodall > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:25 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Netiquette > > > On 22 Sep 2007, at 01:32, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > > > I heard that the Stockholm Peace Institute is underwriting a remake > > of Kill > > Bill I & II. It will be titled "Take A Chill Pill Bill I & 2." Rough > > drafts of the script have Uma Thurman working out her issues > > through group > > therapy, rather than with instruments of destruction. > > Does it keep the foot fetishism? Well, yes, I suppose, but it's not nearly as nice as the original. At the start of the film, we are treated to the narrator deconstructing "This little piggy" through the use of both Jungian archetypes and application of the historical dialectic. YMMV, but that's not my cup of tea. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 22 Sep 2007, at 01:32, Dan Minettte wrote: > > I heard that the Stockholm Peace Institute is underwriting a remake > of Kill > Bill I & II. It will be titled "Take A Chill Pill Bill I & 2." Rough > drafts of the script have Uma Thurman working out her issues > through group > therapy, rather than with instruments of destruction. Does it keep the foot fetishism? Toes Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman" - Usenet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
- Original Message - From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Netiquette > > On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: >> >>>> Martin Lewis wrote >>>> >>>> I was using it in reference to this line: >>>> >>>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." >>>> >>>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were >>>> suggesting something about my mental state. >>> >>> I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. >> >> I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that >> immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. >> >> I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't >> used in my >> own circles. > > Was used in my circles at school in the south of England, so I'm > guessing it crossed the Atlantic one way or the other via TV... > I heard it in school back in the 70s, so I imagine it has been around even longer than that. xponent Chillin And Pillin, Aint You Illin Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:32 PM Subject: RE: Netiquette > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Charlie Bell >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:13 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Netiquette >> >> >> On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: >> > >> >>> Martin Lewis wrote >> >>> >> >>> I was using it in reference to this line: >> >>> >> >>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." >> >>> >> >>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were >> >>> suggesting something about my mental state. >> >> >> >> I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. >> > >> > I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that >> > immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. >> > >> > I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't >> > used in my >> > own circles. >> >> Was used in my circles at school in the south of England, so I'm >> guessing it crossed the Atlantic one way or the other via TV... > > I heard that the Stockholm Peace Institute is underwriting a remake > of Kill > Bill I & II. It will be titled "Take A Chill Pill Bill I & 2." > Rough > drafts of the script have Uma Thurman working out her issues through > group > therapy, rather than with instruments of destruction. > Dan just cracked a joke.. HEY EVERYBODY!! DAN JUST CRACKED A JOKE xponent The Singularity Advances Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Netiquette
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:13 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Netiquette > > > On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: > > > >>> Martin Lewis wrote > >>> > >>> I was using it in reference to this line: > >>> > >>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." > >>> > >>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were > >>> suggesting something about my mental state. > >> > >> I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. > > > > I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that > > immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. > > > > I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't > > used in my > > own circles. > > Was used in my circles at school in the south of England, so I'm > guessing it crossed the Atlantic one way or the other via TV... I heard that the Stockholm Peace Institute is underwriting a remake of Kill Bill I & II. It will be titled "Take A Chill Pill Bill I & 2." Rough drafts of the script have Uma Thurman working out her issues through group therapy, rather than with instruments of destruction. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: > >>> Martin Lewis wrote >>> >>> I was using it in reference to this line: >>> >>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." >>> >>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were >>> suggesting something about my mental state. >> >> I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. > > I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that > immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. > > I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't > used in my > own circles. Was used in my circles at school in the south of England, so I'm guessing it crossed the Atlantic one way or the other via TV... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't used in my own circles. i never heard of chill pill, but here in l.a. i do hear "chill, dude", and chill out" a lot. Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Dave Land wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Richard Baker wrote: > >> Nick said: >> >>> And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. >>> >>> Semper fidelus, >> >> As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" and "fidelis". > > Actually, how do we Nick was not making an oblique reference to > the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (SINA), which required > that all animals be dressed to hide their shame in public? If Nick is going off on a tangent, he doesn't go that obliquely that quickly. At least, not here. I don't have interactions with him IRL, so YMMV. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Netiquette
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: >> Martin Lewis wrote >> >> I was using it in reference to this line: >> >> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." >> >> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were >> suggesting something about my mental state. > > I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not getting that immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained. I believe that is an American colloquialism, and one that isn't used in my own circles. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Richard Baker wrote: > Nick said: > >> And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. >> >> Semper fidelus, > > As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" and "fidelis". Actually, how do we Nick was not making an oblique reference to the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (SINA), which required that all animals be dressed to hide their shame in public? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Netiquette
> Martin Lewis wrote > > I was using it in reference to this line: > > "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." > > I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were > suggesting something about my mental state. I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/21/07, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting > > something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my > > character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of > > an ad hominem? > > No, because he wasn't tying a rebuttal to the exasperation. > > "You're wrong because you're angry" is ad hominem. "Calm down" isn't. Aah! Right, no more Latin. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 21/09/2007, at 6:31 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: > > I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting > something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my > character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of > an ad hominem? No, because he wasn't tying a rebuttal to the exasperation. "You're wrong because you're angry" is ad hominem. "Calm down" isn't. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/20/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not an ad hominem, that's just abuse. Ad hominem is when you > > argue that the person is wrong because of some character of that > > person, instead of engaging the argument. > > I think I sense a trend here: > > "Non-sequitur" used and spelled incorrectly, leading to griping. Spelled incorrectly, used correctly, lead to griping from those who failed to grasp the basic outline of my argument. > "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. I was using it in reference to this line: "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of an ad hominem? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
While we're on other languages, "Eres tarde, Frodo. Los Estados Unidos tiene el Uno Anillo y está usándolo http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ __ "God does not play dice with the Universe" -Albert Einstein "Albert, quit telling God what to do with His dice." -Niels Bohr From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Subject: Re: Netiquette Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:48:33 -0700 On 9/20/07, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nick said: > > > And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. > > > > Semper fidelus, > > As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" I knew that. and "fidelis". And that. My fingers don't listen to me any more. It's astonishing what they type sometimes. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/20/07, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nick said: > > > And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. > > > > Semper fidelus, > > As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" I knew that. and "fidelis". And that. My fingers don't listen to me any more. It's astonishing what they type sometimes. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 21/09/2007, at 7:49 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > Heck no. I appreciate the fact that people on this list want things > said > well, and words used correctly. Yep. Language is one of the defining characters of our species, and it's good to use it well. Better than my friend Allison's lorikeet Ned does, anyway... :-) (Who does know the names of at least three people, and demonstrates some funny connections in his bird brain - he used to be punished with a water pistol, and when Allison's brother's dog was being told off for being too close to Ned's cage, Ned joined in with "No! No!" and then a perfect rendition of a "squirt squirt squirt" noise...). > > Neither did this correction. Cool. Can I offend you now then? Please? Charlie Spoiling For A Fight Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 21/09/2007, at 7:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > English is, after all, the lingua franca of the Internet. > > And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. > > Semper fidelus, > > Nick Damn you! LOL Charlie Sultana Bran On My Keyboard Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Nick said: > And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. > > Semper fidelus, As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" and "fidelis". Rich ROU Pedant ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 20, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: > On 21/09/2007, at 6:52 AM, Dave Land wrote: > >> "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. >> >> Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? > > It *is* English. It may be a Latin-rooted description, but many > technical words are. Would you say that using scientific or legal > terminology incorrectly (again mostly Latin or Greek rooted) is a > good thing? Probably not. So why is using grammatical (litotes, > zeugma for example) or logical descriptions incorrectly any better? > > Did my correction offend you? (I note that both you *and* Martin were > using it incorrectly). Heck no. I appreciate the fact that people on this list want things said well, and words used correctly. Neither did this correction. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 21/09/2007, at 6:52 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. > > Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? It *is* English. It may be a Latin-rooted description, but many technical words are. Would you say that using scientific or legal terminology incorrectly (again mostly Latin or Greek rooted) is a good thing? Probably not. So why is using grammatical (litotes, zeugma for example) or logical descriptions incorrectly any better? Did my correction offend you? (I note that both you *and* Martin were using it incorrectly). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/20/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think I sense a trend here: > > "Non-sequitur" used and spelled incorrectly, leading to griping. > > "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. > > Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? English is, after all, the lingua franca of the Internet. And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. Semper fidelus, Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
I think I sense a trend here: "Non-sequitur" used and spelled incorrectly, leading to griping. "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? Dave Illegitimi non carborundum Maru translation: for those who don't know the latin - don't let the bastards wear you down... jlm - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: > On 20/09/2007, at 3:58 AM, Dave Land wrote: > >>> I'm not sure what this means. I thought you wanted to discuss the >>> ettiquette of online communication? Why do you have to repeatedly >>> resort to these ad hominems? >> >> I sincerely apologize for this and other ad-hominem attacks that I >> have resorted to, including calling you a "twit". > > That's not an ad hominem, that's just abuse. Ad hominem is when you > argue that the person is wrong because of some character of that > person, instead of engaging the argument. I think I sense a trend here: "Non-sequitur" used and spelled incorrectly, leading to griping. "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? Dave Illegitimi non carborundum Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
> i deliberately format the way i do to make it easier to read, but i > am open to suggestion how to make it better, such as using quotes, > or citing who said what, etc. Possibly use a gmail account, POP mail delivery and Mail on your Mac. I reckon you'd find life a lot easier. Drop me a line offlist if you'd like a mail invite and I'll help you through it. Charlie thanks for the kind offer, charlie. you have given me some excellent suggestions before that i have tried to implement, but not always successfully. part of the problem is i have difficulty with the electronic interface, in general. i did get a gmail account, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and have a difficult time with the way e-mail is bundled. i gave up on using the mail function on my mac, but i am starting to get a handle on using a mac, after three years. jon Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 20/09/2007, at 12:17 PM, jon louis mann wrote: > > depends on if it is done in a condescending manner... pointing > out rules be a benefit to other newbies. other things have been > pointed out to me in e-mail that would have embarrassed me if > posted to the list, when it served no purpose to do so. > i deliberate format the way i do to make it easier to read, and > am open to suggestion how to make it better, such as using quotes, > or citing who said what, etc. Possibly use a gmail account, POP mail delivery and Mail on your Mac. I reckon you'd find life a lot easier. Drop me a line offlist if you'd like a mail invite and I'll help you through it. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
when is it okay to contact a person privately? i have had people contact me to spare me embarrassment and inform me of rules like bottom posting, etc. others have not been so kind. jon It is less a question when it is okay but why is it necessary. I don't see what is embarrassing about having rules pointed out to you. Your formatting does make your posts hard to read, by the way. Martin depends on if it is done in a condescending manner... pointing out rules be a benefit to other newbies. other things have been pointed out to me in e-mail that would have embarrassed me if posted to the list, when it served no purpose to do so. i deliberate format the way i do to make it easier to read, and am open to suggestion how to make it better, such as using quotes, or citing who said what, etc. jn Knowledge is Power - Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
other ad-hominem attacks, including calling you a "twit". That's not an ad hominem, that's just abuse. Ad hominem is when you argue that the person is wrong because of some character of that person, instead of engaging the argument. Charlie. GCU Grammatical Correction Maru maybe he meant he is wrong because he is a twit?~) personally, i thought he was joking... who would seriously call some one a twit? jon - Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On 9/19/07, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Dave Land wrote: >>> >>> Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. >>> >> Crom!!! > > I thought it was "Crump." You have your house gods, I'll have mine, thank you. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dave Land wrote: > > > > Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. > > > Crom!!! I thought it was "Crump." Hmm. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Dave Land wrote: >> >> Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. >> > Crom!!! > > Is today "heresy day"? It's Talk Like a Pirate Day. Which, if you believe Pastafarianism is a heresy, might be considered heretical. So, Maybe. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 20/09/2007, at 3:58 AM, Dave Land wrote: >> >> I'm not sure what this means. I thought you wanted to discuss the >> ettiquette of online communication? Why do you have to repeatedly >> resort to these ad hominems? > > I sincerely apologize for this and other ad-hominem attacks that I > have resorted to, including calling you a "twit". That's not an ad hominem, that's just abuse. Ad hominem is when you argue that the person is wrong because of some character of that person, instead of engaging the argument. "You can't possibly be right about climate change, you're American" "You're wrong because you're being offensive". etc. Ad hominen does *not* mean calling someone names. "Klaus, you're a Nazi piece of shit" is not ad hominem. "Klaus, your opinion on tiger keeping is wrong because you're German" is. Charlie. GCU Grammatical Correction Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > when is it okay to contact a person privately? i have had people > contact me to spare me embarrassment and inform me of rules like bottom > posting, etc. others have not been so kind. It is less a question when it is okay but why is it necessary. I don't see what is embarrassing about having rules pointed out to you. Your formatting does make your posts hard to read, by the way. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette
You have a very precious view of communication. There is no breach of trust if there is no trust in the first place. I don't know you, I've never entered into personal correspondence with you, our only connection is as members of a public forum. You attempted to make a public conversation private so that you could insult me without anyone seeing. This is like being at a dinner party and waiting till I'm in the corridor on the way to the toilet to get your insult in. I'd have no problem relaying your remarks to the table. As for the fact two of your messages were forwarded to the list, well, just how naive did you have to be to send that second message? Martin when is it okay to contact a person privately? i have had people contact me to spare me embarrassment and inform me of rules like bottom posting, etc. others have not been so kind. Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Dave Land wrote: > > Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. > Crom!!! Is today "heresy day"? Alberto Monteiro -- Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, and why we died. All that matters is that today, two stood against many. Valor pleases you, so grant me this one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, the HELL with you! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Martin Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Assuming that this exchange took place in the hallway -- that is, in > > private -- would you then return to the dinner party and tell everyone > what > > Dave had said to you in the hallway? As a dinner guest, if either of you brought your troubles back into the party. It's a party, fer cryin' out loud. Just move away from the people you don't get along with. It would be different if we were talking about Congress or some such body. In that case, we can follow the vice president's example and tell each other to... be fruitful and multiply, but not in those words... in front of, well, everybody. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 19, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: > Not necessarily but I wouldn't object if he told everyone what I said. It is, of course, your business to decide that for yourself. It is not your business to decide that for me or anyone else. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If the list wants to continue a discussion of netiquette, I will do my > best to contribute in a courteous manner. What, and deprive us of a good fight? To paraphrase Woody Allen, I'll just tell you to go be fruitful and multiply... but not in those words. I was tempted to write something extremely discourteous, then note that you're my best friend to reveal the irony... but it just doesn't seem worthwhile. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Besides which, if we were at a dinner party and you presumed to > > correct my manners I would not consider it a courtesy and would, in > > fact, tell you to mind your own fucking business. > > Assuming that this exchange took place in the hallway -- that is, in > private -- would you then return to the dinner party and tell everyone what > Dave had said to you in the hallway? Not necessarily but I wouldn't object if he told everyone what I said. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: >> Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. > > I'm not sure what this means. I thought you wanted to discuss the > ettiquette of online communication? Why do you have to repeatedly > resort to these ad hominems? I sincerely apologize for this and other ad-hominem attacks that I have resorted to, including calling you a "twit". There is no excuse, it is utterly unwelcome in civilized discourse, I should not have done it, and I am sorry. I hope enough has been said on that subject. >> If we are at a dinner party and I see you wiping your mouth on your >> sleeve, it would be extraordinarily rude of me to announce to >> everyone >> at the table, "Martin is wiping his mouth on his sleeve." >> >> If, instead, I chance to see you in the hallway and say in private, >> "Wiping your mouth on your sleeve is uncouth.", then I do you a >> courtesy. > > When I talked about the dinner party I was using an analogy. Did you > understand that? Apparently, given the unrelated situation you > describe above, you didn't. I respected your introduction of the dinner-party analogy enough to continue using it. Please read it in that light. Continuing the analogy, your forward of my private message to the list was as if you had returned from our private conversation in the hallway and announced in the dining room, "Dave just told me that it is uncouth to wipe my mouth on my sleeve. Can you believe his rudeness?" I think our fellow "dinner guests" spoke clearly enough: it is not polite to take private conversations public. It is acceptable to conduct private business in private. > Besides which, if we were at a dinner party and you presumed to > correct my manners I would not consider it a courtesy and would, in > fact, tell you to mind your own fucking business. > >> A courtesy which I now see that you do not deserve. But then again, >> extending courtesy to those who do not deserve it has a long and >> distinguished history, and even has a name: grace. > > I'm both amused and baffled that you seem to think you have the moral > high ground. What possible basis could you have for thinking so? Because (with the shameful exception of my having lowered myself to using ad-hominems), I am on the high ground. In short: - It is entirely appropriate and correct for me to take a private conversation off-list for the benefit of the list and the parties in the private conversation. - It is entirely inappropriate and incorrect for to inflict those messages upon the rest of the list just because you happen to feel slighted by them. That is the moral high ground on which I stood. With that, I am finished discussing it with you in front of the list. If the list wants to continue a discussion of netiquette, I will do my best to contribute in a courteous manner. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Martin Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Besides which, if we were at a dinner party and you presumed to > correct my manners I would not consider it a courtesy and would, in > fact, tell you to mind your own fucking business. Assuming that this exchange took place in the hallway -- that is, in private -- would you then return to the dinner party and tell everyone what Dave had said to you in the hallway? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 19 Sep 2007, at 18:10, Dave Land wrote: > On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: > >> On 9/18/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>> B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without >>>>>the permission of the author. >>>>> >>>> I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. >>>> But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the >>>> public without the consent of the author of those parts". >>> >>> Evidently not. I've had two of my private messages forwarded to the >>> list this week. >> >> You have a very precious view of communication. There is no breach of >> trust if there is no trust in the first place. I don't know you, I've >> never entered into personal correspondence with you, our only >> connection is as members of a public forum. You attempted to make a >> public conversation private so that you could insult me without >> anyone >> seeing. This is like being at a dinner party and waiting till I'm in >> the corridor on the way to the toilet to get your insult in. I'd have >> no problem relaying your remarks to the table. >> >> As for the fact two of your messages were forwarded to the list, >> well, just how naive did you have to be to send that second message? > > Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. > > If we are at a dinner party and I see you wiping your mouth on your > sleeve, it would be extraordinarily rude of me to announce to everyone > at the table, "Martin is wiping his mouth on his sleeve." > > If, instead, I chance to see you in the hallway and say in private, > "Wiping your mouth on your sleeve is uncouth.", then I do you a > courtesy. > > A courtesy which I now see that you do not deserve. But then again, > extending courtesy to those who do not deserve it has a long and > distinguished history, and even has a name: grace. > This is why we have netiquette. People don't agree about manners but they can agree to follow an arbitrary set of rules in mailing lists. Sweet Reason Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time." - Bill Gates, 1987 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/19/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without > the permission of the author. > > >>> I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. > >>> But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the > >>> public without the consent of the author of those parts". > >> > >> Evidently not. I've had two of my private messages forwarded to the > >> list this week. > > > > You have a very precious view of communication. There is no breach of > > trust if there is no trust in the first place. I don't know you, I've > > never entered into personal correspondence with you, our only > > connection is as members of a public forum. You attempted to make a > > public conversation private so that you could insult me without anyone > > seeing. This is like being at a dinner party and waiting till I'm in > > the corridor on the way to the toilet to get your insult in. I'd have > > no problem relaying your remarks to the table. > > > > As for the fact two of your messages were forwarded to the list, > > well, just how naive did you have to be to send that second message? > > Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. I'm not sure what this means. I thought you wanted to discuss the ettiquette of online communication? Why do you have to repeatedly resort to these ad hominems? > If we are at a dinner party and I see you wiping your mouth on your > sleeve, it would be extraordinarily rude of me to announce to everyone > at the table, "Martin is wiping his mouth on his sleeve." > > If, instead, I chance to see you in the hallway and say in private, > "Wiping your mouth on your sleeve is uncouth.", then I do you a > courtesy. When I talked about the dinner party I was using an analogy. Did you understand that? Apparently, given the unrelated situation you describe above, you didn't. Besides which, if we were at a dinner party and you presumed to correct my manners I would not consider it a courtesy and would, in fact, tell you to mind your own fucking business. > A courtesy which I now see that you do not deserve. But then again, > extending courtesy to those who do not deserve it has a long and > distinguished history, and even has a name: grace. I'm both amused and baffled that you seem to think you have the moral high ground. What possible basis could you have for thinking so? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: > On 9/18/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without the permission of the author. >>> I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. >>> But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the >>> public without the consent of the author of those parts". >> >> Evidently not. I've had two of my private messages forwarded to the >> list this week. > > You have a very precious view of communication. There is no breach of > trust if there is no trust in the first place. I don't know you, I've > never entered into personal correspondence with you, our only > connection is as members of a public forum. You attempted to make a > public conversation private so that you could insult me without anyone > seeing. This is like being at a dinner party and waiting till I'm in > the corridor on the way to the toilet to get your insult in. I'd have > no problem relaying your remarks to the table. > > As for the fact two of your messages were forwarded to the list, > well, just how naive did you have to be to send that second message? Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill. If we are at a dinner party and I see you wiping your mouth on your sleeve, it would be extraordinarily rude of me to announce to everyone at the table, "Martin is wiping his mouth on his sleeve." If, instead, I chance to see you in the hallway and say in private, "Wiping your mouth on your sleeve is uncouth.", then I do you a courtesy. A courtesy which I now see that you do not deserve. But then again, extending courtesy to those who do not deserve it has a long and distinguished history, and even has a name: grace. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On 9/18/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without > >>the permission of the author. > >> > > I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. > > But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the > > public without the consent of the author of those parts". > > Evidently not. I've had two of my private messages forwarded to the > list this week. You have a very precious view of communication. There is no breach of trust if there is no trust in the first place. I don't know you, I've never entered into personal correspondence with you, our only connection is as members of a public forum. You attempted to make a public conversation private so that you could insult me without anyone seeing. This is like being at a dinner party and waiting till I'm in the corridor on the way to the toilet to get your insult in. I'd have no problem relaying your remarks to the table. As for the fact two of your messages were forwarded to the list, well, just how naive did you have to be to send that second message? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Jon and friends, On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:42 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > Dave Land wrote: >> >> A) Please do not respond off-list to comments made on-list except >> when >>handling a personal attack. > i agree, dave. however, i once responded to someone off line, but > only because my reply was not relevant to the topic. the response, > in effect, was anything i had to say could be posted online. After thinking about what I wrote, I change my mind about putting a prohibition about "going offlist" in the guidelines: it's not the list's business if I want to have a private conversation with someone. If you don't want to hear from someone on the list privately, say so in a return private message and they won't trouble you again. On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Dave Land wrote: >> >> B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without >>the permission of the author. >> > I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. > But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the > public without the consent of the author of those parts". Evidently not. I've had two of my private messages forwarded to the list this week. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Dave Land wrote: > > B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without > thepermission of the author. > I believe this is so basic that it transcends any list rules. But I would qualify: "do not post parts of private e-mails to the public without the consent of the author of those parts". I have often engaged in private conversations, and some of them became public (with mutual consent). Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Yes, and no. There's nothing in the guidelines that says either: A) Please do not respond off-list to comments made on-list except when handling a personal attack. B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without the permission of the author. Martin and I each crossed one of those lines in this exchange. I'll keep my conversations on-list in the future, and I trust my list- mates to keep my private messages private. I'd be happy to see those added to the netiquette guidelines, if others concur. Perhaps a small section on "taking conversations off-list"? Dave PS: Did you mean for the paragraph "Like lists that have" to be so short?I think I recall having seen paragraphs in your emails in the past that trailed off like that. I don't want to have missed anything of value you may have meant to say :-). i agree, dave. however, i once responded to someone off line, but only because my reply was not relevant to the topic. the response, in effect, was anything i had to say could be posted online. jon m. - Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
Yes, and no. There's nothing in the guidelines that says either: A) Please do not respond off-list to comments made on-list except when handling a personal attack. B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without the permission of the author. Martin and I each crossed one of those lines in this exchange. I'll keep my conversations on-list in the future, and I trust my list- mates to keep my private messages private. I'd be happy to see those added to the netiquette guidelines, if others concur. Perhaps a small section on "taking conversations off-list"? Dave PS: Did you mean for the paragraph "Like lists that have" to be so short?I think I recall having seen paragraphs in your emails in the past that trailed off like that. I don't want to have missed anything of value you may have meant to say :-). i agree, dave. however, i once responded to someone off line, but only because my reply was not relevant to the topic. the response, in effect, was anything i had to say could be posted online. jon m. - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Netiquette
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:20 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Netiquette (was Re: Car free London?) > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > >> > >> Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. > >> It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. > > > > Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is > > pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their > > behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called > > transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular > > list would at least get that. > > Thanks, Charlie. I've been on lists where taking gripes offline > was the practice to save the list from flamewars, and exposing > a private message to the list was verboten. > Like lists that have Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/etiquette.htm in the guidelines? :-) The interpretation of "attacks" that I remember included any personal negative comment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette
On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: >> On Sep 17, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: >> >>>> Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. >>>> It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. >>> >>> Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is >>> pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their >>> behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called >>> transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular >>> list would at least get that. >> >> Thanks, Charlie. I've been on lists where taking gripes offline >> was the practice to save the list from flamewars, and exposing >> a private message to the list was verboten. > > Like lists that have > > Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These > should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some > controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the > person. > > http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/etiquette.htm > > in the guidelines? :-) Yes, and no. There's nothing in the guidelines that says either: A) Please do not respond off-list to comments made on-list except when handling a personal attack. B) Please do not post emails received off-list to the list without the permission of the author. Martin and I each crossed one of those lines in this exchange. I'll keep my conversations on-list in the future, and I trust my list- mates to keep my private messages private. I'd be happy to see those added to the netiquette guidelines, if others concur. Perhaps a small section on "taking conversations off-list"? Dave PS: Did you mean for the paragraph "Like lists that have" to be so short?I think I recall having seen paragraphs in your emails in the past that trailed off like that. I don't want to have missed anything of value you may have meant to say :-). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette (was Re: Car free London?)
On Sep 17, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: >> >> Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. >> It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. > > Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is > pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their > behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called > transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular > list would at least get that. Thanks, Charlie. I've been on lists where taking gripes offline was the practice to save the list from flamewars, and exposing a private message to the list was verboten. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette links was:Re: DING!
At 22:16 21-11-2002 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: > Think of it this way... how would you feel if a personal private email > that you had written for a specific purpose/person is then plastered > across the Internet? This doesn't really apply in this case. JDG surely knew Jeroen would probably post them to Brin-L. Actually, I think he keeps replying off-list deliberately. He knows that I will almost certainly reply to his posts on-list, which gives him the opportunity to whine about my alleged violation of community standards. At the same time, he can play the poor victim (in his own words: "I obviously don't think that I am doing anything wrong") and pretend to be morally superior. The purpose of this appears to be to provoke a response from the listowners (in his own words: "and maybe the accumulation of Ding!'s might spur the List into taking corrective action"). What he is trying to achieve here is that the listowners will see him as a poor helpless victim and get so fed up with all this that they kick me off the list. This raises the question: why would he want me to be removed? Well, that should be obvious: I do pretty much everything he hates. He makes claims but refuses to back them -- I want him to back his claims with facts. He makes claims but refuses to answer questions -- I want him to answer my questions. I often manage to shoot holes in whatever he is arguing -- he hates it when people point out that he is wrong. He expects others to admit to being wrong, but refuses to do that himself. He habitually commits gross violations of community standards -- I criticise him when he does that. So, it is obvious *what* he is doing and *why* he is doing it. The only question now is whether the listowners will fall for this elaborate charade of his and give him what he wants (my removal from the list), or if they will see right through it and *not* give him what he wants. Jeroen "Busted!" van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette links was:Re: DING!
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Netiquette links was:Re: DING! Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:16:33 -0500 On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:52:10PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html > > Think of it this way... how would you feel if a personal private email > that you had written for a specific purpose/person is then plastered > across the Internet? This doesn't really apply in this case. JDG surely knew Jeroen would probably post them to Brin-L. And was more than likely prepared to complain about it loudly when the inevitable occurred. If only they both knew how little some of us care which one of them is right, ruder or otherwise, they'd both shut up about it and keep their p*ssing matches offlist where they belong. What a pipedream right? I wonder how many people here have, by now, either killfiled the two of them or merely delete their e-mails unread on a regular basis. Jon GSV Hi Ho Hi Ho it's off to Kill they go. :-) _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Netiquette links was:Re: DING!
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:52:10PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html > > Think of it this way... how would you feel if a personal private email > that you had written for a specific purpose/person is then plastered > across the Internet? This doesn't really apply in this case. JDG surely knew Jeroen would probably post them to Brin-L. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette links was:Re: DING!
http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/elec.html It is considered extremely rude to forward personal email to mailing lists or Usenet without the original author's permission. http://www.albury.net.au/new-users/netiquet.htm Keep private messages private, don't post to the group as well. http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3 If you find a personal message has gone to a list or group, send an apology to the person and to the group. http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must include the author's permission to post the material publicly. Not doing so can get you into some deep doo-doo. Think of it this way... how would you feel if a personal private email that you had written for a specific purpose/person is then plastered across the Internet? Ask permission before forwarding/posting any private emails! http://www.rdc.com.au/Netiquette.html It is considered extremely rude to forward personal email to mailing lists or Usenet without the original author's permission. xponent Argument Killer Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
