Yep, David, I was wrong about that.
Randolph
----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: censorship
> >The time lag between sending a post and its
> > appearing on the list is negligible
>
> A rarity here, Randolph, for once I have to (very mildly) disagree on this
> one point. A message I sent last night took just over three hours to show
> its face. As far as I understand, its all a matter of 'packets' and
> 'streaming' - ie - any e-mail, when sent, is broken up into little
'packets'
> of data by the cyberdemons. These 'packets' are then sent, via all the
> relays of 'repeaters' and 'gateways' and 'bridges' etc through the webby
> intricacies _but not necessarily by the same routes_ and can arrive at
> destination in _any order_ where they re-assembled and appear again,
entire
> and a 'message'. Sometimes strays occur, which is when a message takes
time
> to get itself together, dazed as an involuntary TimeLord.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randolph Healy" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:11 AM
> Subject: Re: censorship
>
>
> > Kent,
> >
> > I can assure you that no one on the list will be bloked by any of the
> three
> > traffic managers. The gender of listmembers is entirely their own
affair.
> >
> > Also, I'm not convinced it that one can call it censorship if one is
> removed
> > from an e-list. Or, if one wants to call it that, is overposting a form
of
> > censorship if it discourages others from posting? It's a tricky area,
but
> > I'd prefer to think of the list as a team sport, not a blood sport.
> >
> > Finally, I'm a bit cheesed off with you over the way you've been tossing
> > patently false accusations at Candice. And this while talking about the
> need
> > for checking up one's facts. The time lag between sending a post and its
> > appearing on the list is negligible. One can't block posts on Poetryetc.
I
> > think an apology is in order here.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Randolph
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: censorship
> >
> >
> > > >All you have to do is say that, yes, the moderators will inform the
> list
> > > >when another member is being bloked or deleted. Why the hesitation to
> do
> > so?
> > > >Just say yes.
> > >
> > > For godsake Kent, it's already been said.
> > >
> > > My recall is that you left. I remember now that you were subscribed
> > > under two addresses, and after your public announcement of leaving,
> > > Candice helpfully removed the other address, since you seemed to have
> > > forgotten. None of us have the ability to block individual emails.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate it if you would stop attacking Candice.
> > >
> > > A
> > >
> >
>
|