There could also be two threads, one OT and one NON-OT with the same subject.
I'm not convinced that it was ever NF to begin with. --- On Mon, 11/15/10, Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OT] Monkey Weather Science > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, November 15, 2010, 9:50 AM > I don't think any ONE person should > be allowed to Drag the Thread into > OT territory - while others are not. Its really EVERYONE's > responsibility to police their Own actions. And, if someone > is going to > make an [OT] type reply - and drag the whole msg thread > down into the OT > Territory Drain - then that is too bad. > > As such - I have marked this as [OT] now - to hopefully > spare the rest > of the folks on the Non-OT version of the list from getting > continued > replies... > > -K- > {A Non-OT subscriber...} > :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Pete Theisen > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NF] Monkey Weather Science > > Kurt Wendt wrote: > > Pete - NO - I agree w/Ken! And it was NOT a Knee-Jerk > reaction. In > fact > > - I believe that Ken was saying this should be [OT] in > regards to > > Michael's reply - since THAT Reply now pushed this > thread into a > HIGHLY > > [OT} arena - since his response was SO CRITICAL > Against those that > > believe in Global Warming. And - since that has been > such a HEATED > > DEBATE over the years - and Essentially a VERY MUCH > Political type of > > debate - then THAT is the reason that this is now > [OT]. > > > > So - Pete - considering what I wrote - would you NOW > agree that this > > topic has run into the [OT] territory??? > > > > [Also - notice I did NOT give an opinion on Global > Warming - I am > simply > > pointing out that this is a heated topic and is now an > [OT] topic. I > > would have actually changed the [NF] in the Subject to > [OT] - but, > then > > I would NEVER have seen my own response - since I > subscribe only to > > ProFoxTech!] > > Hi Kurt, > > Getting back to the computer program would be an > alternative. Seems they > > have a lock on the insurance forecasting model for now - > until one of > you geniuses writes another. > > Thread drift can take any thread [OT], you may have noticed > that certain > > folks are "allowed" to do that. To condemn a thread while > not having > read the link (or even the quote) - that is knee-jerk. > > > You didn't read it before deciding on your knee-jerk > response, did > you. > > It is about a fairly new computer program that raises > your insurance > > premiums by a lot. > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://pete-theisen.com/ > http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ > > [excessive quoting removed by server] > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/289ea162f5642645b5cf64d624c66a1409df1...@us-ny-mail-002.waitex.net > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
