[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mr Censor



He's Back! I've got six more!

Rich Thomson, 

Allow me to first say that I understand your concern for off-topic posts.
However, if you insist on informing those who participate on this list of
their infractions, I would urge you to read the entire thread first so that
you can clearly see that each "off-topic" post is merely an outgrowth or
logical continuation of a discussion whose roots are in fact who-related. 

For example, the recent discussion of the Who's opening bands over the years
led to many threads which focused on these bands, and not necessarily the
Who. According to your admonishment, every single one of these posts should
have taken place privately. As you can see, this would not be feasible as
more than two individuals were partaking in this discussion.

Yes, those threads may not be of interest to every subscriber of this group.
And, yes, the subject may not appear to be who-related per se. But, if at
least three people have posted responses to the subject, why should they take
their conversation elsewhere? 

As I said in an earlier note, and has also been said by other, frequent,
posters to this list, this forum is what the participants make of it. If the
bulk of posts is from the same 50 people, the content will reflect the
interests, who and non-who, of those participants. You must have an interest
in the Who if you belong to this list and have expressed a strong interest in
its content. However, the only method in which you have expressed that
interest is via private e-mail. I don't recall seeing 'Rich Thomson'
authoring any group posts, who or otherwise. 

Until such time that you participate in the direction of this forum, your
comments, who-related or otherwise, will fall on deaf ears (no pun intended;
but qualifies for who content). 

Sincerely, 

Litgo

In a message dated 96-05-20 13:05:46 EDT, rthomson@ptc.com (Rich Thomson)
writes:

>Subj:	Re: Mr Censor 
>Date:	96-05-20 13:05:46 EDT
>From:	rthomson@ptc.com (Rich Thomson)
>Reply-to:rthomson@ptc.com
>To:	Litgo@aol.com
>
>
>Please keep it on-topic for the list.  The volume of legitimate
>material is high enough without having to wade through off-topic
>posts.
>
>If you are replying to the author of a message, consider whether or
>not your reply is relevant to the whole list.  If not, just reply to
>the author only and not to the entire list.  In particular, short
>posts like "me too" and "thanks" are best sent to an individual and
>not the entire list membership.
>
>Your cooperation will make the list better for all of us.
>
>If you don't like recieving such reminders, then simply keep the
>material on-topic for the list, and you will never see another one.
>
>In article <960516170954_295743911@emout15.mail.aol.com> , you wrote:
>> ML, re:
>> 
>> >I've gotten four so far. Anyone else get more? I'm going for the record,
>you
>> >see. Since, as you know, my notes are so very often off subject. This
note
>> >should get me another one. I'm playing it straight, though...not creating
>> >non-Who notes in order to get the record (that's fair enough, isn't it?).
>I
>> >play fair and square.
>> 
>> I got seven or eight that night. Even on some I had nothing to do with
>(i.e.,
>> Keith's cymbals). I must be completely stupid, so could someone tell me
how
>> something about Keith's cymbals is not who-related? Maybe Rich could deign
>to
>> reply to these 'misguided' accusations.
>> 
>> In anticipation,
>> 
>> Litgo
>> 
>> 
>--
>         Between stimulus and response is the will to choose.
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  3D Paint Programmer / Fractal Freak           Rich Thomson
>  Parametric Technology Corporation             rthomson@ptc.com
>
>
>-