4 Feb
2000
4 Feb
'00
1:11 a.m.
Upon the date 04:55 PM 2/3/00 -0500, Bill Dawson said something like:
-- snip --
This is now the way I feel too Bill. I see the light: An important
technical discussion kept private will not benefit the group as a whole nor
benefit those researchers (ourselves and others) who try to find answers
>>
somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
>> teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
>> services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-
>> To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;
>> then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
>> guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
>> own.
(emphasis mine). And that, I think ends this discussion.
O.K. Valid argument. I now agree with those who wish to change back to the
*OLD* way. Most replies are directed back to the group anyway, not to
individuals.
It's not a case of hardware, software, or means. It's more one of
functionality and purpose. The purpose should be to facilitate discussion
with the group and to disseminate information to the group. A replies to an
individuals directly is not the main purpose of CLASSICCMP as I see it. from the Archives and is essentially a Bad Thing.
I feel the *OLD* way is preferable. We just gotta keep in mind that a reply
intended to be private will automatically go to the whole list as it always
had been before now.
That's about the only significant problem with having an open forum as the
old ClassicCmp setup had been. It would also relieve some of the
significant problems that folks like Tony, Allison, et al. have just
started having. I may even want to try using Pine or try telneting or try
something else "classic" someday myself. It's true classic computer
operation in a sense as opposed to this windoze stuff.
Regards, Chris
-- --
Christian Fandt, Electronic/Electrical Historian
Jamestown, NY USA cfandt(a)netsync.net
Member of Antique Wireless Association
URL: http://www.antiquewireless.org/