Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, you replied to the list and not to me, which was discourteous.
You mean that he replied to the list *only*, I hope.
I usually consider it offensive when people reply to me and not the
list (reasons including: It feels like being grabbed by
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, you replied to the list and not to me, which was discourteous.
You mean that he replied to the list *only*, I hope.
Yes, and it was written as if to me, and was a reply to an email from me.
I
Thank you both.
I would prefer to communicate through the list only.
Mike.
On Tue August 8 2006 04:47, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, you replied to the list and not to me, which was discourteous.
What could be the reason, to respond not only to the list? I did not see an
advantage, to receive a response twice, once directly, once by the list.
Is it wrong, to assume that someone who writes to the list, does also
receive all the postings on the list?
Heinz
At 08:09 08.08.2006 -0500, Mike
[Re-sending to the list only for archiving, as my original reply had too
many recipients and I cancelled it.]
1. One need not be subscribed to the list to be able to post. Thus,
indeed, a poster may not see all postings.
2. On the relatively rare occasion (thanks to Martin) where the server
I agree. Also, sending a copy to the poster means that they are
likely to get it first which seems like a desirable courtesy.
On 8/8/06, Marc Schwartz (via MN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Re-sending to the list only for archiving, as my original reply had too
many recipients and I cancelled it.]
