From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2006 - 15:27:25 EST
In einer eMail vom 26.11.2006 18:07:14 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU: > I find your contribution to this problem very imaginative. Instead > showing ways of how a problem might be solved you are suggesting to > discriminate against a member of the list. Rakesh may have not chosen > the right way of expressing his concerns but this does not give anyone > the right to say ignore him. Nicky's suggestion isn't as "imaginative" as you seem to suggest: not opening messages from a sender whose messages you do not care to read or marking someone's mesasages as "SPAM" so that they do not fill your "inbox" are legitimate and normal ways which Internet subscribers use to filter their incoming mail. Both of these methods have long been practised by some subscribers to this list. It is one's own decission and right to do whatever he/she wants to do with his/her post received. Biut it is something else and no longer private matter if someone suggests publicly discriminating aginst. Such an atitute requires public response. This is not a solution for myself, though, as I -- wearing my administrative hat -- have to follow the discussions and intevene as moderator where necessary. I normally use this address when so doing so as to avoid confusion. As for your wish to see the conflict solved, the answer is very simple: DON'T FLAME! This is not the optimal answer, however: public apologies to the person who has been flamed and to the list would be a much better and just solution. You say here to me in plural "DON'T FLAME". Do you mean I have flamed anyone in the list or why are you using the plural imperative form. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST