Howdy all,
Regarding the flame lots of you have been emailing me about (I'm typing on
a tandy keyboard here at school and the space bar isn't too sensitive so
if you see odd words, that's why):
Originally I hadsaid I'd edit posts that were 1/2 sdre-info, 1/2 flame,
and the post about Will, Jeremy, andDan's various members would seem to
scream out forthat sort oftreatment. Butthe listowner didn't really
approve ofediting people's posts (itis a little bit1984'ish) so we decided
any 1/2 and1/2 post would probably inspire posts relating either
exclusively to the flame, and exclusively to the sdre-content, and only
content ones would be senton - an initial flame maymake itthrough but it
would stop after that.
The post in question brought up a point that hadn'tbeen mentioned yet
(another thingI take into consideration - noonewants to hear the same
point made ad infinitum) - that point being how can we expect Nate to up
and leave Foo without reason other than his old band is back together - so
I sent it on. And I liked Joe's response to the flame even more, so I
sentiton as well. I evensent one POLITE counter flame (i.e. Ithink it
wassomeone sayingthey agree but don'tbesorude) and that's probably all
you'll hear because everything else related tothis flame isn't beingsent
on.
So it wasn't a matter of a flameslipping through, I sent it on b/c it
raised a point not previously raised, and a valid one at that. It's too
bad it had a nasty littleflameon the end of it, but it's a choice ofeither
send it in entierty, or don't send it atall.
Finally, don't think you can slip flames in now if you couch them in
sdre-content. After all this I'm more inclined to not send on such posts,
regardless of sdre-content...
Eat, drink, and be merry,
****************************************************************
* "The coast is clear!
Lance Ferris *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * (Tides rush in,
Psychology * pull us farther undertow)
McMaster University * - Cursive
****************************************************************
