> Well, I did in fact point them in the right direction, and I don't think
> I flamed them, not necessarily. I told them to next time look for
[stuff deleted]
>
> It's both inconsiderate to people with limitations on their mailbox and
> it's a waste of my time to scan through 200 messages (which accumulate
> daily), with many of them being completely avoidable.
>
This is the type of mail listservs generate.
> You call flaming inappropriate, but I didn't flame anyone -- and yet,
> someone gives the exact same advice I gave in more words and they are
> praised for this? They say I told him to go for himself, they say it's
> rude, but I pointed him in the right direction. While the very same
> person tells 'em to go look for himself? Well, so be it. I don't need
> to defend myself or my actions. You misinterpreted what I said to be a
> flame, call flames inapporpriate, and flame me for it...
>
>
> Spawn@KrimsonMud
>
My comments were not directed toward you personally but to the enitre list
in general. So, I don't know why you're getting defensive about it. Check,
your mail header, and you'll see that my mail was not a reply to any thread
that involved you.
>
> ps. I've not flamed anyone, yet.
>
Nice veiled threat there...I like that 'yet'...
--
===============================================================================
John T. Cox - IT, Resource Centers | jtcox001@homer.louisville.edu
| jtcox001@starbase.spd.louisville.edu
"Oh yeah!, Well I'm Princess Angelina | jtcox001@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Contessa Louisa Francesca Banana Fanna| jtcox001@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
Bo Besca the Third!" - Dot | http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~jtcox001
===============================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST