Hi Bill,
Thanks for getting wound up at least a little bit. :-)
I've always adhered to the agreed set of abbreviations for other
people's sake, but then again I'm just a humble European succumbing to
video surveillance in public places, restrictions on personal firearms
and higher taxes than people on the Western hemisphere dare to dream
of in their nightmares. (Poor sentence, sorry about that. Didn't even
manage to get in anything about neither religion, beer or cats.)
In a true freedom-loving spirit I will for once take a bold stance and
say that noone's got the right to force me to adhere to *their* rules
like that! It invades my individual freedom, it does.
So if the recipient has a problem with the sender having a problem
with the recipients filters, that's not the sender's but the
recipient's problem.
I'd love to elaborate on this, but my wife tells me it's late now and
I have to go to bed.
Jostein
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: xESO: Weekend shooting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jostein"
Subject: Re: xESO: Weekend shooting
Honestly... Is the use of abbreviations just for the convenience of
those who
love to set up filters? -And how many are they, really? For all I
know, they
may be a loud-speaking minority.
At some point, someone's going to argue that the use of filters is
not the
sender's problem.
Personally, I'm fairly close to that. But then again, I tend to
dislike both
filters and TLAs...:-)
Some people like to compartmentalize the 100-200 emails this list
generates into what interests them and what doesn't, for the sake of
convenience, and I am sure, to save some time for things they find
more important.
To me, it is a respect for our fellow members issue.
While the recipients filters is not the senders problem, that the
sender is causing the recipient a problem is the senders problem.
William Robb
