 |
 |
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