Of course flagging up new resources and sites is a valuable use of this
discussion list, and we are grateful for those who take the time to do so.
The difference with Chris Sivewright's contributions is that in general they
are promoting his own services, and it is this which constitutes an improper
use of a discussion list. Perhaps Chris should solicit a list of members who
are interested in his services, and then limit his mailshots about his
services to them?
From: chris.sivewright <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: 23 May 1999 10:34
Subject: Re: New resources
>so another posting that is aggressive, unnecessary and irrelevant. Almost
the same as the
>last one.
>
>#completely ignoring the several constructive postings from Galloway and
others that came
>afterwards.
>
>
>this list is not for spamming. teaching is not just about your point of
view repeated ad
>infinitum when it offers nothing constructive.
>
>year 7 would teach you that if you would but listen.
>
>
>
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> I thought this was supposed to be a discussion list - not a mail order
catalogue.
>> If I wish to view someone's web page I am quite capable of finding it for
myself.
>> I don't however appreciate having to spend time reading messages from
other list members
>> arguing about who did what and why won't you reply to my e-mails
boo-ha-ha-shucks,
>> my dads bigger than your dad.
>>
>> I get all of this every day from Yr10.
>>
>> Let's get back to meaningful discussion with less advertising bumph and
less childish
>> squabbling.
>>
>> KEITH REEVES.
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|