 |
 |
I can attest to the weirdness of messaging with poetryetc from time to time as far as my Inbox anyway. It is not entirely uncommon for me to 1)not see my original message come in via the list yet find replies to same and 2)on occasion to find messages marked "Re:[subject]" and never received the original post from whomever. It happens (hmm, it happens. Shit happens!) :fp *************** Frank Parker [log in to unmask] http://now.at/frankshome ----- Original Message ----- From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:59 PM 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 > > > > > >