Was this email a joke? If so, I apologize in advance. If not... On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Mike Miller wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Bob Tanner wrote: > *snip* > > Too bad we didn't have a brief explanation of your ideas about the issues > before the vote. You sent one word: "denied." Then when the guy you > treated so rudely responded in kind, he was attacked instead of you. He sent one word followed by a number of other paragraphs, the first of which was: > Unless you can get poll up and get majority of subscribers to vote for > the removal of the yahoo ban. How is that rude? He gave Wayne an alternative, and several suggestions on how to circumvent the ban (i.e., gmane). > I don't have time to read the rest of your aimless message with all the > exclamation points and one-word sentences, but it doesn't look any more > productive than some of the other messages you've sent today. I'm not finding yours any more productive, considering you quoted Bob out of context and ignored the meat of his email. For the record, I pulled that quote out of this message, which I can only imagine you were attempting to refer to: http://archives.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/2006-June/050017.html Despite Bob's claimed title, whenever an ethical or technical dilemma has come up on the list (as far as I can recall, at least), he's taken the issue to the list and gotten our opinion. I recall this method being employed for the Yahoo/Hotmail ban, the Reply-To munging, whether messages should be deleted from the archive upon request...probably others, but I can't think of them off-hand. Since you didn't care to read his most recent email, I'll summarize: it was the background story of what led to the Yahoo ban. Jima