----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] The hardware conflict...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, P Witte wrote:
Wouldnt it be better if the default mode was (individual) ? We're all (individual)s on this list. If you were making some Committe announcement or writing in your official capacity you could use (QUANTA) to make that clear.
Dear (*)Sir ( )Madam
Your ( )email (*)post ( )spam was ( )not at all (*)almost as interesting as the (*)original post ( )last spam.
( )Please refrain from such posts in future. ( )What where you thinking? (*)This meets the requirement that civilian posts not be as funny as Quanta Governmental Rulings ( )__insert remark here__
Dave
PS: I am really looking forward to ZN's post explaining unsuitability issues with coldfire processors. (hah, on topic!)
Yes, you are all permitted to have a bit of fun at Quanta's expense on this one, but there is a serious point and I have no difficulty in adding "individual" to some of my emails when I write about Quanta.
Tarquin recently made a serious point when he asked if Quanta committee meetings were secret. There are some of us on the committee who would like to see members being much better informed about what the committee get up to. That could be via this list, but it would be important to make a distinction between official and informal announcements.
Don't forget there are some organisations that forbid committee members from expressing personal opinions in public. Quanta is fortunately not one of them, as you have well seen from my ouput over the last month, but I think it has the right to expect committee members to make it clear when they are writing individually.
Best Wishes Geoff (Individual)
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
