On 02 Nov 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
I'm happy to continue if the community believes that this has
non-trivial value, but I suspect it is just as well to require a
subscription before posting.
Thanks for moderating.
But +1 to dispensing with that chore in favour of subscription.
Defi
On 02.11.2010 15:47, Nick Kew wrote:
On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:48, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'm happy to continue if the community believes that this has
non-trivial value, but I suspect it is just as well to require a
subscription before posting.
Thanks for moderating.
But +1 to dispensing with that
On 11/02/2010 03:47 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:48, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to continue if the community believes that this has
>> non-trivial value, but I suspect it is just as well to require a
>> subscription before posting.
>
> Thanks for moderating.
>
> But +1 to
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 09:48 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> require a subscription before posting
+1
--
Bojan
> Thanks for moderating.
>
> But +1 to dispensing with that chore in favour of subscription.
+1
+1
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:48, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > I'm happy to continue if the community believes that this has
> > non-trivial value, but I suspect it is just as well to require a
> > subscription before posting.
>
> Thanks for moderating
On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:48, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I'm happy to continue if the community believes that this has
> non-trivial value, but I suspect it is just as well to require a
> subscription before posting.
Thanks for moderating.
But +1 to dispensing with that chore in favour of subscription.
As one of your humble list moderators for some time now, I've saved a
few end users the minor aggravation, perhaps temporary, of subscribing
before posting, and of course rejected hundreds upon hundreds of spam
messages. The number of messages mistakenly accepted to the list (I'm
not saying I did
