On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:38:26 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>I respectively request that if you choose to not respond to
>individual posts and in a timely fashion, that you do not respond to
>my posts. To be fair, I'll refrain from responding to any of your
>tomes.
>
>At 08:09 PM 1/30/97 +0800, you wrote:
SJ>Group
>
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:03:31 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
[...]
The above was indeed a response to Steve Clark's post, but it was to
the Group, not to Steve. Therefore, he need not feel he has to
respond to it. I have no problem at all if he ignores my posts.
There is a difference of 19 days between the date of Steve's post
and my respnse to it. If Steve's points were substantial, I really
fail to see what difference 19 days makes. Some of the points raised
by the evolution side require a fair amount of research, which all
takes time. I would have thought that if they were interested in the
truth of the matter, they would rather a well-researched answer that
is a bit late, than a quick response that is poorly researched.
This Reflector is growing in volume and changing its character. It's
no longer the cozy little mailing list it once was. More and more
people are entering it and this will probably increase, not decrease.
I well remember a time when there was no mail for several days and
Terry had to ask if there was something wrong! The Reflector is
probably going through a normal evolution (!) into a newsgroup. It
will probably eventually become one or be merged with talk.origins.
I am going to start treating the Reflector as a newsgroup and not
read every message or feel I have to respond to everything I disagree
with. I suggest others do the same.
Nevertheless, I will try to post more frequently. That will of
course increase the total volume of messages, because instead of one
post per week on a topic, there now will be one post and
several responses on each topic.
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:58:31 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote Re: Steve
Jones Mail glut:
[...]
BH>I agree. If there is one topic from weeks and weeks ago that you
>would like to reopen, I doubt anyone would object if you reopen it.
>I intend to do just that with a topic I've been slowly gathering
>information on. But flooding the group with responses to posts that
>are many days -- sometimes weeks -- old does not contribute to the
>discussion. Learn to prioritize and deal with one or two topics at
>a time.
See above - I will post more frequently and maybe I will take up
Bill's suggestion from time to time of reopening a topic "from weeks
and weeks ago".
I had already advised will "prioritize" by filtering those posts with
my name in them and respond to those mainly.
But as for "deal with one or two topics at a time" I claim the
natural justice right to respond to attacks on my position or my
person. Since a large volume of posts from the evolution side are
just that, they should accept a corrrespondingly large volume of
my responses to those posts.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------