[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread gary
'Twas ever thus. Gary On 2016-08-05 10:25, John Mardinly wrote: > To me, the real tragedy of YouTube is that they pander to some of the > lowest forms of entertainment imaginable. I have, unfortunately learned > about some of them from my 14 year old daughter. Top of the trash heap > is PewDieP

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread David van Ooijen
Oops, now I'm the bore/spammer. ;-) *** David van Ooijen [1]davidvanooi...@gmail.com [2]www.davidvanooijen.nl *** On 6 August 2016 at 11:52, David van Ooijen <[3]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> wrote: Christian et a

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread David van Ooijen
Christian et al. I block people that spam, bore or insult. The way the lutelist works means that such a filter is not perfect, but it helps a little. David Out *** David van Ooijen [1]davidvanooi...@gmail.com [2]www.davidvanooijen.nl *

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread David van Ooijen
: Christian Aretz <[4]christian.ar...@posteo.de> To: Martyn Hodgson <[5]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: "[6]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <[7]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>; LutList <[8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Saturday, 6 August 2016, 9:10

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread Martyn Hodgson
artyn __ From: Christian Aretz To: Martyn Hodgson Cc: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" ; LutList Sent: Saturday, 6 August 2016, 9:10 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy Please excuse my lack of interest in netiquette-discussions, but wouldn't it be a good

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread Christian Aretz
Please excuse my lack of interest in netiquette-discussions, but wouldn't it be a good moment to stop this publicly conducted (and meanwhile extremely annoying!) discussion now (!) and get back to normal life and lute related topics? Thanks, Christian > Am 06.08.2016 um 09:53 schrieb Martyn H

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-06 Thread Martyn Hodgson
Dear Monica, Well, kettle and pot comes to mind! But seriously, I'm certainly happy to admit that I was wrong in this case by expecting a personal email to remain private. This is the whole point of my last message which, I'm very sorry to say, you have avoided addressing. Whether I

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-05 Thread John Mardinly
r matter. As ever MOnica Original Message From: [4]john.mardi...@asu.edu Date: 05/08/2016 17:25 To: "M Hall"<[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> Cc: "LutList"<[6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>, "Martyn Hodgson" <[7]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-05 Thread mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
hurch. You pays your money and takes your choice. Whether the artists make any money out of it is another matter. As ever MOnica Original Message From: john.mardi...@asu.edu Date: 05/08/2016 17:25 To: "M Hall" Cc: "LutList", "Martyn Hodgson" Subj: [LUTE]

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-05 Thread John Mardinly
To me, the real tragedy of YouTube is that they pander to some of the lowest forms of entertainment imaginable. I have, unfortunately learned about some of them from my 14 year old daughter. Top of the trash heap is PewDiePie, a purveyor of profanity, stupidity and trash with 42 mill

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-05 Thread mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Clearly this is going to run and run as Martyn can never admit that he might be in the wrong. As far as I am aware Martyn does not know Anton personally, knows nothing about him or his work, doesn't understand why he is doing it or why he sends messages to the list to draw attention to it. I thi

[LUTE] Re: Protocol was Re: Privacy

2016-08-05 Thread Martyn Hodgson
Dear Monica, Well, to be clear, I didn't wish to say anything on the open list since, knowing how some may take any suggestion, even if meant helpfully (as explained in my longer subsequent posting), as a slight, a private rather than public message was thought more appropriate in