On 2011-02-18 12:45, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Joe Koberg wrote:
>> To me it seems a good policy to make sure the person you're
>> replying to has their own copy of your reply.  It gets to
>> them immediately and eliminates the possibility of the list
>> mangling it.
> That is really bad policy.  So you're so much more important that the
> recipient that you get to send one message thru the list like everyone el=
se
> and one additional spam message to get extra attention?  If someone doesn=
't
> want to reply to your message, that's their choice.  You have no right to
> send them a second spam message to insist on more free help or to try to =
cut
> in line somehow.
>
> Nobody is owed a reply here.  You only get replies because others decided=
 to
> volunteer their time to your issue.  You want to make as things easy and
> un-annoying to the volunteers who donate their free time to respond here =
as
> possible.  Your method basically penalizes people for responding, and so =
is
> a really bad idea.
>



<< long reply reconsidered and omitted >>

This could quickly escalate.  I will just say you've assumed a lot of=20
things about my intent that are wrong.  I would personally welcome=20
direct followups. Your revulsion at my mail client's default Reply-All=20
action prompted me to apologize and change my own behavior.

I am interested in posting technically relevant questions, and=20
volunteering any help I can myself provide.   I don't know what else=20
this list is supposed to be for.


Cheers,

Joe Koberg

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.