>Keith, as you know, I'm on web-only delivery for the messages at this >list, unless I email them to myself first.
No, I didn't know that. Why would I want to know that? I'm only interested in that if people have problems, and then I have to go to Yahoo to find out. The less time I waste at Yahoo's list controls the better I'm pleased. >So because I dont have this >stuff archived in my Eudora mail reader program, I just went through >and cut-and-pasted into "Word" all the messages from the past week >that you're asking me to respond to. Two, actually. And the first one, which you still haven't responded to. And yes, there's also the other two earlier messages you didn't respond to that everyone's been trying to take no notice of, so I reposted them. But of course if you'd responded to the original message in the first place telling you to stop spamming none of this would have happened, would it? As Gustl said, and it's inescapable. Again (always have to do it again!!!): >There are 2 things I do not understand about this discussion. First, >is it not enough that a list moderator explains a rule of the list and >asks that it be adhered to? If a moderator told me that on this list >we do such and such and do not allow such and such I would conform to >the regs of the list whether I liked them or not. This only seems >reasonable to me. If it offended me that much I would unsubscribe. As >it is I think the moderators have good, solid reasoning behind the >rules which guide the list. You've just made it worse by generating all this tedious and ugly stuff - this "messy flood" - here and elsewhere. >I put it into Word so I could >print it out. Trying this (printing) was a mistake: > >Not counting my separate posts, not counting James or Gustl's or mine >or Terry's or Pan_ruti's or anyone else's posts, Kieth alone has >posted to this list, 23,095 words (my word processor gives a word >count on it) in the past few days on the topics of me, netiquette, >whether i"m 'promoting' something, whether or not I answered old >messages where we disagreed, responses to Terry and Mark McElvy, and >and a number of other points (this word count including untrimmed >threads that just Keith alone re-posted). > >This came out to 70 pages of unformatted email in Word, all from one >person (I of course then didn't print it, I was expecting about 5 >pages). > >Anyway I bring this up because the reason I posted 'Gentlemen, set >your filters' is that peopel regularly complain on lists that high >volumes of email are difficult for them to deal with, and because I >knew I'd be sending out long stuff, replying in-line to Keith's long >posts, etc. That's really why you bring this up? > James Slayden asked if this could be 'taken offlist'. I mistakenly >thought that more people besides James had also said this onlist (I >think they did, but not at [biofuel]. > > My point about filters was meant for those people who didn't want to >get flooded with long emails, and also for those who thought that this >should be offlist, (of whom I mistakenly though there were more, >requesting this publically). My opinion is that my filter message was >taken to read as 'watch out Im going to post something nasty and you >might not want to read it' or something like that. That was not what >was meant at all. I don't think anyone needs any reminding that this thread is nasty, nor what the subject titles are - though I see you've launched yet another new title rather than keeping it simple with the usual "Re:" response. Why isn't it titled "Re: Gentlemen, set your filters"? Why start yet another thread? That's five threads now instead of one, all started by you. But you're trying to make it easy for people? If this were truly your concern here now, being considerate about bandwidth and possible annoyance, something like this would have been adequate: "Some people have asked for it to be taken off-list and they'll be long replies, so I just wanted to warn them." 22 words and I wouldn't have had to reply. Instead it's 322 words, and I have to reply, yet a further 1,163 words, more waste. No Mark, sorry, this is just more of the same from you. The reason you bring it up is to demonstrate that Keith has whipped up a huge flood of stuff that's annoyed everyone so you can pretend you're trying to save us all further trouble. Word counts, eh? 23,095 words from me you say. Let's have a look then. Earlier I posted a 193-word reply to Ken Provost listing the relevant urls up to then. It's here. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/37900/ One purpose in doing that was to provide a handy reference for people so they could get it right before responding, hoping to cut down on the proliferating babble. And the growing smokescreen. With so many people deliberately getting it wrong, having that list there saved a lot of unnecessary requoting of what had gotten all twisted out of shape. That url list included my original message to you telling you to stop spamming, your two (ahem) responses to it and my two responses to those. Three emails from me totalling 7,474 words only. Only the first one should have been necessary, a mere 588 words. ALL the rest has been the direct result of the huge smokescreen you've thrown up, including absolutely minimal reports on your nasty campaign at the Biodiesel list. Keith shouldn't have done what he had to do to set the record straight, again and again and again, but should just have let it happen to save people's bandwidth? Yeah, right! You want to complain about big word-counts and unwieldy Word docs? Complain to yourself. This is disingenuous, Mark, very - that's the kindest word I can find, and it's MUCH too kind. Having kept the whole damned list waiting for four days for your response while all this cancerous BS went on and on swelling here and at the Biodiesel list, and elsewhere too I'm told, and this is what we get? You were "too busy"??? We're ALL too busy!!! What the hell makes you so special? For the second time. And more of this stuff yet to come? "Straight dealing is always better Mark." Better for everyone! Very obviously you're not going to listen to me, but I'm still hoping you'll listen to Gustl and Pan and others. If you're not prepared to be more candid then please try *genuinely* to spare the list members, and the whole biofuels community: take Todd's advice. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner >Mark ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
