Stop the ad hominem David. Michel
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:32 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote > Actually, John's assessment is correct and there were no ad hominem remarks > made by him. You still seem not to have toned down your smug attitude and > continue to incite negative responses. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote > > Stop the ad hominem please. > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:08 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote > > >> Your post made my point. >> It added Re: which because it is after the {Vo} isn't grouped by subject. >> Even worse sometimes a second re: gets added as in: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone >> or even [VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger >> >> But mainly subject deletion which is really bad. >> If Mark S Bilk's fix works all the better, but for those who want to > create >> a filter for vortex posts they can just use the To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Anyway I thought you might have toned down the condescending attitude but > it >> seems not. >> >> On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Only in your dreams John :) >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "vortex-l" < [email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM >>> Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote >>> >>> >>> > >Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy "Vo:" adding macro. It does not > work! >>> >> >>> >>- Jed >>> > >>> > Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread. >>> > >>> > My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has >>> left >>> > anyway. >>> > >>> >>> >> >
