Well, the following memo sat in hotmail's mail system for a week
before it figured out that the domain name is wrong.  Go figure.
I don't really like the tone of this memo all that much either but it's
what I was feeling at the time. I'm really not trying to stop anyone
from posting things others want to read. I'm just trying to
add a little organization to make it easier for the members of this
group (including myself) to receive only those posts of interest.
Perhaps something good will come of this.



>Date: 18 Sep 1997 06:16:31 -0000
>From: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: failure notice
>
>Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotmail.com.
>I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
><[log in to unmask]>:
>CNAME lookup failed temporarily. (#4.4.3)
>I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too
long.
>
>--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: (qmail 5306 invoked by uid 0); 11 Sep 1997 05:16:28 -0000
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from 205.134.228.157 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
>       Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:16:22 PDT
>X-Originating-IP: [205.134.228.157]
>From: "ron barber" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Ron Barber's post of 8/7
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:16:22 PDT
>
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:37:07 -0400
>>From: Mitchell Mills <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject:      Ron Barber's post of 8/7
>>To:   Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>I was offended by two aspects of this message on our list,
>>
>>First,  filthy language has no place here.
>>
>>Secondly, humor is a fundamental therapeutic modality for Parkinson's
>>patients and their care partners.
>>In our support group here in Northern Virginia, we have had a number
of
>>excellent speakers who have emphasized this.
>>
>>Ron, perhaps it is you who needs to go to a (bleep) chat group.
>
>I apologize for my previous post which was clearly out of line.
>
>I'm trying to cope with many issues (Family, job, illness...) and
>sometimes I do better than others.  I agree that humor and social
>contact are valid, good, appropriate...
>
>I just find the volume of posts unrelated to PD overwhelming
>I simply don't have the time/energy to wade through it all.
>I know I'm not the only one who feels this way- this topic comes
>up over and over because there's a real problem.
>
>I have solved the problem (more or less) for me- my mail browser
>is now configured to delete all mail from certain parties.  I'm
>sure I'll miss some good stuff, but hopefully the signal to noise ratio
>will improve.  I still think splitting the list makes sense-
>If the list were subdivided into multiple lists and all of us
>were automatically subscribed to each of the sublists, then those of us
>who stayed subscribed to all the lists would see no real
difference-they
>would get all the same posts from all the same people.
>
>Those of us with more restricted interests would simply unsubscribe
>from those lists they weren't interested in.  I would suggest
>an initial split of PDINFO, PDCHAT, PDPOLITICS.  The politics
>list could be the primary place to discuss Udall, etc.
>
>The PDINFO list would focus on other issues relating to PD including
>drugs, lifestyle,  calls for help, insurance, PD-related jokes...
>
>PDCHAT would be more free wheeling- jokes with no connection to PD ,
>virus warnings, recepies, whatever.  As you might be able to guess, I
>would pass on PDCHAT.  I'm guessing others would pass on PDPOLITICS.
>
>The only burden on senders would be a good faith effort to choose
>the right list to post to.  This doesn't seem to be too much to ask.
>
>For those who say that things can't change because they've always
>been this way , consider this- once there was exactly one mailing
>list on the entire internet(only about 25 years ago) now there are
>many thousands. As more of us come on line this will continue to evolve
>- lets try to keep an open mind.
>
>For those of you who oppose a split can you please tell me (on list or
>off)  why you think this sort of split would be too difficult for you
to
>cope with, or why it would damage the community- remember
>with my proposal those of you who like the current mix of posts
>would stay subscribed to each of the sublists and would continue
>to see the exact same mix of posts in the future.
>
>humbly yours.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com