 |
 |
Sat. 30-12-2000 11:45 "janet paterson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Janet, >> if you are referring to my messages yesterday, let the record show <SNIP> that over half of my messages were in response to questions directed at me by other list members and were directly related to these problems on the list << Going into defense here?? Why?? >> i vote for an option of parkie members [as opposed to non-parkies and care-givers] having a double allowance of message posting "quota" << Why should parkies be allowed to send more postings than other members?? >> i now own four lists of varying types and activity level at egroups.com [much fewer than simon coles, for example] << IMO not the amount but the quality of the lists matters. >> i trust that such extra-curricular ownership will not be construed as being against the new rules << IMO not the what but the how would be essential. >> reviewing the rules of the new charter << As I understood the words of Barb P. there are not going to be new rules, but the current rules will be more specified and detailed, so even *I* (LOL) can understand what I can or cannot send to the list. Hans.