> Davis, Iain E. said: > >> In my experience, the more technically adept the members > > > > So your desire is to restrict the discussion about Brust's > fiction to > > the technically adept? > To suggest > that I would is namecalling, not debate. Darnit, I thought I had been rude somewhere else, but couldn't find it. Thank you for pointing it out. :). Should I re-iterate my apology? :) > My point is exactly what I said. *In my experience* those that > understand, don't munge. I wouldn't restrict a thing. > I never said majority, I said many. If you disagree > that thousands > qualify as "many", that's something else entirely. I didn't even > claim a plurality, though I'd *hope* that's the case. You're right, I disagree that "thousands" is "many". But that is a purely subjective thing...that's an entirely different discussion...one my wife and I have fought over before: "But But a few is a "small" number!, no more than 3-4!" "No, it's more like 6 or 7!" etc. I'm reminded of Heroes of might and Magic, which had very specific ranges for "few" "small" "many", a "pack", etc. I no longer remember the ranges, but I think "thousands" constituted a "throng". :). Of course, this was for measuring quantities of creatures. > >> Sourceforge.net hosts THOUSANDS of mailing lists- > their policy > >> is not to munge. > > > > That's not necessarily an indicator...Yahoo! Groups > probably has lists > > in the "thousands", and the Reply-To is configurable, I'm sure the > > other providers of similar services are similarly configuraable. > > Ahh... I get upbraided for "many", but you're "sure" about all > other providers that are not equal to Yahoo! Groups? Sorry, I didn't think that through. Or didn't think through what concept that I wanted to get across. ...And you correctly identify my faulty thinking in using the phrase "I'm sure"...when I was expressing an opinion rather than something I'm certain is fact. Personally, I find it more likely that sites abiding by a "standard" are going to be to be in the minority. I could certainly be wrong about that. :) > Presumptuous, aren't we? I think everyone would agree with that statement, for many reasons. Both with the meaning you intended (That *I* am presumptuous, for many different reasons), and other potentially humorous meanings. :) > I am well aware of the difference between the two, and again > speak of their mailing lists, of which I am an admin of many > well familiar. Hmm. If it sounded like I thought you weren't, or was assuming you were otherwise unknowledgable, that was not my intention. :) Oddly, while I'm "subscribed" to 3 of their forums, I'm not subscribed to any of the lists. I wonder if I should change that. :) > > effort/time level. *chuckle*. Then again, you may regard that as a > > "feature", that'd be less noise from me! ;) > > It's only noise when you're incorrectly attributing ideas and > claims to me that I do not hold or make. The rest is just > discussion. :) *grin*. I'll try to do better. (or worse? ;). To be honest, I debate badly...either due to lack of detachment or through impatience. :). So feel free to blame any faux pas (sp?) on my overall incompetence. :) > I didn't say correct, I said compliant. :) Hmm. Okay. :). It is hard for me to argue with you there, ideally, everything should be "standard compliant"...of course, on the other hand, the "standard" should provide all the functionality we desire. :) ...perhaps I missed a key item here. Is there a way (as defined in the relevant RFCs) for a message header to indicate that a) the message in question is a list message and b) discriminate between the real sender of the message, and the list-sender? So that a "standard compliant" mail client could provide a mechanism (button, key, menu option, voice command, whatever interface you prefer) that you could acurrately select your target (individual, the list, both, etc.) with a single click/keypress/command? That would certainly change my viewpoint. :)