In article <007401c20b4e$a7996dc0$fb9250d8@pavilion>, Mel LaVerne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Malcolm Cadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 01 June, 2002 10:19 >Subject: Re: [ql-users] May the 'Source' be with you, but not me ... > > >> >> In article <003901c20951$3ee82f40$5a065cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> > >> >> I am terribly bored with the SMSQ/E 'Source' discussions ... any >> >chance >> >> of the details going 'off list' until there is something definite to >> >> report ? >> > >> >Isn't it the kind of discussion which could go onto ql-developers >> >list? >> > >> >While the whole issue of the sources needs to be sorted, it's in great >> >danger of being counter productive at the moment. Too many people >> >getting p***ed off with the length and impenetrable detail and legal >> >argument. >> >> ... I thought I was not alone :-) >> > >You're not ! I find myself making generous use of "delete".with both "Source" >and "... Proposals." _without_ reading.
Yes ... I've got to that stage myself :-( Although there are always 'threads' that are of more interest than others, for all us. I think the 'Source' would be better between the 6 to 10 who are most involved. -- Malcolm Cadman
