Mike Stevens wrote: > From: "Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> > Some years ago, at the time of the Great Flame Wars, quite a few > people criticised this list (which at the time was twinned with the > Usenet uk.rec.waterways, IIRC) was getting bogged down in in-group > chat, much of it off-topic. Some regulars, partly in recognition > that there was some justice in the criticism and partly wanting to > get away from the atmosphere of the GFW, set up a separate list for > general and off-topic chat. Others of us were allowed to join that > list subsequently, and it still thrives. Indeed some of the people > (me included) who commit a fair bit of inconsequential wibble here > are also members of that other group, so perhaps we ought to be a bit > more disciplined about what we send to which group. And perhaps some > others would like to join us in the other group - membership there > is by invitation and the normal routine is for a proposer to suggest > to the group the name of potential recruit and unless there are any > objections, an invitation to them will follow.
I can't be doing with yet another list. Time I've read this one, then the CutWeb one, follow on with URW and FBUC (and a quick peek at UKcanals in case anything has been posted there) (plus a couple of science ones), there's no time left to do anything else. And I never bother with the various forums, they just take too much time - a mail/news program is much faster to scan for interesting items. Ron Jones Process Safety & Development Specialist Don't repeat history, unreported chemical lab/plant near misses at http://www.crhf.org.uk Only two things are certain: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. ~ Albert Einstein
