Frank is now in my kill file. And also, my drinks file.
Hic.
---Lon the Blatently Stupid.
And, BTW, Cotty can't be trusted any further than you can
throw any engine out of a 1950's 'Murican car.
Hic. -Lon, the icredibly besotten.
frank theriault wrote:
Drinks? Did someone
I'm with Christian on this. This list is more than just about Pentax.
Having been on the list for quite a while, I find the ebb and flow to
give me much more than just the basics of photography. There are many
that have become friends and many whose opinions I value.
Leave it just the way it
what server is smart enough to know the right list?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
It is fairly easy
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And here I sit, trying to determine who AH is. I just can't seem to
fit the initials with anyone I know. . . Hmmm.
I got a feeling that AH is also known under WTSDS...
Cheers,
Jostein
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
That is not necessarily true. An unmoderated list with good involvement
by the list manager can generally keep things on topic by reminding
people not to drift too far off topic. A steady but not too strong
hand doing this for a long period will grow a
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I don't believe that you can scan 200 messages a day and decide if
they are interesting to your or not, no matter what client you use.
I do.
And two other lists.
And I work an average of 50 hours a week.
Digests! You get a dozen or so emails a day,
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to
read.
Yup. And for some messages, my delete key is automatic :)
You mean like thi
Oh no, I don't autodelete *your* messages Cotty!
(I do have a special folder for them. Kind of like a
I wanted to say, Yes, and plenty of heals., but that's mean and untrue...
(but it would have been witty).
At 01:44 PM 1/27/04, you wrote:
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
That is not necessarily true. An unmoderated list with good involvement
by the list manager can generally keep things
On 27/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
That is not necessarily true. An unmoderated list with good involvement
by the list manager can generally keep things on topic by reminding
people not to drift too far off topic. A steady but not too strong
hand doing this for a long period will grow a
Drinks? Did someone say Drinks?
-frank (suddenly becoming quite interested in what so far has been a pretty
boring thread)
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
You got a
Labelling the subject in some simple way would not only help people like me
to eliminate unwanted posts -- but an F: for film would help select the
desirable ones as well. If the task becomes too laborious, as it often does,
I may sacrifice all and lose valuable exchanges as a result. Is that what
Hi,
the correct way to deal with this sort of thing is for people to use
the subject line properly, and to change it as and when necessary.
That is the real problem, although personally I don't think it is a
particularly bad problem. If I miss something interesting in one of
the threads I delete,
On 26 Jan 2004 at 12:43, Bob W wrote:
Easy identification of the subject, and useful filtering comes from
writing and maintaining useful subject lines, not inventing new
languages and trying to impose them on other people.
Is my mailer the only one that can sort as easily using the messages
!
- Original Message -
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
Hi,
the correct way to deal with this sort of thing is for people to use
the subject line properly
Hi,
Cheers to you too, AH.
AH I suppose is some sort of coded insult because I disagree with you.
If so then it reveals a great deal about you, none of it pleasant.
--
Cheers,
Bob
At 07:12 AM 26/01/2004, you wrote:
And so, anything that makes it
easier for others to read your contributions is helpful.
Oh, I wish.
I enjoy reading the list and I learn lots, but this morning I was faced by
4 digests full of quoted text on lpp/lpm and JCO's table repeated over and
over and
Hi!
wb Oh, I wish.
wb I enjoy reading the list and I learn lots, but this morning I was faced by
wb 4 digests full of quoted text on lpp/lpm and JCO's table repeated over and
wb over and over (and over). If there was any interesting stuff in those
wb digest then I missed it.
wb If you can't
Nope.
Rob Studdert wrote:
Is my mailer the only one that can sort as easily using the messages body of
text as it can the subject line (or any other field for that matter)?
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change
Well! That solved the problem.
--
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
That's bull and you know it. No one imposes anything on anyone on this list
and you know that too. All I'd really like to see is D: for digital and an
F: for film. I thought I'd made that clear. But since there is so much
digital stuff
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Labelling the subject in some simple way would not only help people like me
to eliminate unwanted posts -- but an F: for film would help select the
desirable ones as well. If the task becomes too laborious, as it often does,
I may sacrifice all and
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
On Mon
Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Yup. And for some messages, my delete key is automatic :)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Splits are nice, I see that on other lists already. People can then post
to all the lists at the same time, that increases the volume even more.
Funny to see the objections to digital, but the bigger volume for OT is
OK for most folks.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 22:43, alex wetmore wrote:
I think
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Bill Owens wrote:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
At 150-300 messages per day it is difficult to even do that. The
subject of the message is also not always suitable for telling you if
the message contents are interesting.
alex
Great idea
Look, this list is more than just about photography. It's a community and I
like it here. Hell, some people who contribute valuable, insightful
information, don't even shoot Pentax anymore! Don't try to split it into
pieces.
Delete the off-topic banter. It's so easy. If I
Hi,
I think it would be more effective to split the list into sublists.
there are plenty of discussion list host-sites around. Everybody is
entirely free to start a list on any subject they choose, and invite
others to join them.
But consider this: If you start a list, or a sublist, with a
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Bob W wrote:
I think it would be more effective to split the list into sublists.
there are plenty of discussion list host-sites around. Everybody is
entirely free to start a list on any subject they choose, and invite
others to join them.
This is true. I should let
Hey, we could be just like usenet. HAR!
There are a lot of complaints about OT threads, they seem to come mostly from
someone who has subscribed to ask a question about his new Pentax camera
and plans to leave as soon as he gets an answer.
Anyone else notice that Don left in a huff saying he
Why are you over here trying to run our list then? Don't feel empowered enough
with you own? We, in general, like the way Doug runs this one. You have made
several offers to fix things that don't need fixing for us. You seem to be
something of a control freak, Alex.
--
alex wetmore wrote:
On
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone else notice that Don left in a huff saying he would only be back if he
had something to say, or wanted a question answered. Grin, why don't we all put
his name in our kill file so we can not see his messages when he comes back. I
mean he can't even
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, graywolf wrote:
Why are you over here trying to run our list then? Don't feel empowered enough
with you own? We, in general, like the way Doug runs this one. You have made
several offers to fix things that don't need fixing for us. You seem to be
something of a control
Hi,
I don't believe that you can scan 200 messages a day and decide if
they are interesting to your or not, no matter what client you use.
of course not. That's what subject headers are for. If I'm not
interested in the subject, or if I lose interest in it because it has
strayed, I delete all
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Yup. And for some messages, my delete key is automatic :)
You mean like thi
of the
reasons the signal to noise ratio is so low.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
I would love to see such a split
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Yup. And for some messages, my delete key is automatic :)
You mean like thi
Oh no, I don't autodelete *your* messages Cotty!
(I do have a special
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
what makes you think that this would have any useful effect? all you would
is the same messages spread across 15 or so lists and an additional volume
of messages from
The only multiple list setup that I have seen that really works well is
PNN. The secret of their success is very diligent moderation. Any
infraction can result in you being placed into read only mode, or
worse. No over quoting, no flames, no bad language, and no off-topic
posting. When the
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Herb Chong wrote:
what makes you think that this would have any useful effect? all you would
is the same messages spread across 15 or so lists and an additional volume
of messages from people telling other people to post on the correct lists.
It is fairly easy to eliminate
38 matches
Mail list logo
