Hello Mark,
I just read the recent discussions about the lists archive. What I
promised to do was to feed escribe with the older archive I have
preserved. I'm very sorry to admit that it is merely a time problem to
that I have and not the lack of interest. Since this topic is brought
up again
In a message dated 3/6/2002 4:34:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Mark,
I just read the recent discussions about the lists archive. What I
promised to do was to feed escribe with the older archive I have
preserved. I'm very sorry to admit that it is merely a
--- Sam Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Mark,
I just read the recent discussions about the lists
archive. What I
promised to do was to feed escribe with the older
archive I have
preserved. I'm very sorry to admit that it is merely
a time problem to
that I have and not the
Sundar: I am sorry, your statement needs to be
substantiated
with facts. There may have been junk on that forum,
but ascribing
that to a few persons points something behind that
allegation. It
is really unwarranted.
SP: Do you think that you fall in the category of
those who I mentioned
SP: It is interesting that those who are most
concerned about accessing the archives are the ones
who have posted the most junk on this forum.
Sundar: I am sorry, your statement needs to be
substantiated
with facts. There may have been junk on that forum,
but ascribing
that to a
Hello Mark,
I just read the recent discussions about the lists archive. What I
promised to do was to feed escribe with the older archive I have
preserved. I'm very sorry to admit that it is merely a time problem to
that I have and not the lack of interest. Since this topic is brought
Marilyn:
To stand in the position of judging what is
another's junk is
beyond any position I would want to take or dare to
take.
SP: Then it is simple: do not take that position. :-)
I've always heard that 'what is one man's junk is
another man's treasure.'
It doesn't seem to bother
