On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 12:21:04 PM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> As you are not subscribed, you may have missed this post.
Peter (and all the others who lately have re-sent messages for the
same reason, that's why I'm posting here),
as we *are* duly subscribed, we had
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 12:21:04 PM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As you are not subscribed, you may have missed this post.
Peter (and all the others who lately have re-sent messages for the same reason,
that's why I'm posting here),
as we *are*
Overview of my post:
I have read the thread through now and I will try to respond in one post
to save bandwidth, but I make no promises. I will say that now that I am
thoroughly upset that I have to explain this again. Marco, who is very
found of the archives, seems to ignore all of the respons
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 18:34:42 PM -0600, Rigel
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Before I was subscribed to the list... Some time ago now, I never failed
> in receiving responses to my answers? :) And when someone re-posted
> because "I may not have gotten it" I got that response too... The OOo
> mai
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:14:23 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Marco, who is very found of the archives, seems to ignore all of the
> responses he receives every time he brings this up.
Fact is, I haven't received yet an answer to what I am actually
suggesting. Just look, t
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:14:23 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
3) Kill list me -- Doesn't really change anything, but you won't know I
am doing this.
It changes a lot. Nothing personal here, but do you know how email
works? I don't want to ignore all o
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 11:31:35 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think this is my last post because we are going in circles. I am going
> to make the following conclusions. If am wrong please let me know.
>
> 1) The overall issue seems to lie in the collabnet software tha
Le dimanche 24 juillet 2005 à 11:31 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo a écrit :
> 2) Everyone (save maybe Nicolas) agrees that unsubscribed posters should
> get a copy of the message.
Contrary to what seems to be the general opinion on this list other
people do deal with user questions in a nice manner. M
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le dimanche 24 juillet 2005 à 11:31 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo a écrit :
2) Everyone (save maybe Nicolas) agrees that unsubscribed posters should
get a copy of the message.
Contrary to what seems to be the general opinion on this list other
people do deal with user quest
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 13:43:25 PM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> OOC: If you hate this list so much, as you have aluded to so far and
> think we are conceited and don't know how to do things, why do you
> stay here?
Since you and many others are probably wondering the same
First off, Marco, I think Peter was not speaking to you in that case,
but the other bitching guy, who hasn't said as much as you, but all he
said was negative, much like you. You may have realized that, and
decided to answer anyway, on your own behalf. Your wording seems to
be able to go either w
Chad:
on 07/24/05 14:20 'Chad Smith' wrote:
[snip]
The only drawback is that
annoys *YOU*. And, I for one, am willing to live with that
ineffectiveness.
Priceless. Thank you.
oldgnome
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:20:45 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> First off, Marco, I think Peter was not speaking to you in that case,
> but the other bitching guy, who hasn't said as much as you, but all he
> said was negative, much like you. You may have realized that, and
> deci
Please help me to understand how over the course of 24 hours, we can
have 38 messages, all dedicated to a single thread on an argument about
replying to e-mails of users not on the list?
I still don't understand why we are arguing about the "philosophy" of
the act, when this is a technical lis
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 13:56:19 PM -0600, Rigel
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Please help me to understand how over the course of 24 hours, we can
> have 38 messages, all dedicated to a single thread on an argument
> about replying to e-mails of users not on the list?
Having single threads burst to
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 22:19:11 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It's an honour to side with Marco with such an opposition.
>
> And since it seems you won't let the matter rest, and I'll have to
> answer before you continue flooding the list :
>
> the reason I've not unsubscr
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 13:43:25 PM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
OOC: If you hate this list so much, as you have aluded to so far and
think we are conceited and don't know how to do things, why do you
stay here?
Since you and many others are probably won
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 16:42:22 PM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>OOC: If you hate this list so much, as you have aluded to so far
> >>and think we are conceited and don't know how to do things, why do
> >>you stay here?
> >
> >Since you and many others are probably wondering
I think that Peter has done a good job in explaining his point.
Now the rest of those who keep on posting and complaining are doing exactly
what
they said that Peter was doing, cruding up the reflector with lotsa stuff I
just delete.
Maybe you all need a mediator to come to a consensus and le
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:31:35 -0700, Peter Kupfer OOo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5) No one thus far has stepped up to do that, so until a time when that
is accomplished, the status quo will have to remain because it is the
only method that achieves the goal of sending only one copy of an
uns
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 17:10:43 PM -0700, Eugene T.S. Wong
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >5) No one thus far has stepped up to do that, so until a time when that
> >is accomplished, the status quo will have to remain because it is the
> >only method that achieves the goal of sending only one copy
21 matches
Mail list logo
