Two Mail Limit
From:
Bernard Claydon
Date:
2006 Mar 02 15:45 UTC
Short link
Hooray!
I was discussing this off-list with Dan while my last block was in effect -
which is another solution. Answer people privately. But that rather defeats
the point of having a forum.
The limit cripples the free flow of communication. I'm told the powers that
be in the USA have decided this is how it should be, but I can't see the
sense in it.
As this is my second post of the day and I, like Glenn, will be gagged for
the next 24 hours, I might as well rabbit on and on and try to get
everything off my chest on a variety of topics while I've got the chance!
It's not the same as a public meeting where only one person can speak at a
time and people obviously have to be limited and take turns. If, as a member
of the forum, you find some topics distasteful, or just boring, and don't
want the emails dropping into your inbox, perhaps you should consider
setting up 'rules' in your email app and filter all forum messages into
their own folder. You can then dip into it as and when you get the urge. You
can even filter messages from individuals, whose views you don't want to
hear, straight into the bin. That's much better than posting to the list to
try and muzzle what little discussion does go on. Otherwise, you can just
visit the forum on the web to monitor discussions.
Well.. I think that's all I've got to say for now. I hope so. I'll be back
tomorrow. Please don't talk about me while I'm gone.
B->
Tom Coady:
> Glenn Williams:
>>
>> I already feel the 2 mail limit
>> stifles real debate (did I hear cheers in the background?).
>
>
> I agree, the 2 mail limit puts an unnatural cap on the expression of one's
> views, particularly if more than one person is making points against you and
> you want to defend your position.
>
> It's also completely counter-intuitive the way you must reply to all and
> then remove the senders address to save them from a double dose; I wonder
> how many have replied privately without realising it? I certainly have and I
> have received replies where I wondered if it was just for me or for the
> list.
.