Re[3]: disagree w/Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines

     
     Bob
     
     Maybe you think that I am trying to curtail discussion, but I am not.  
     If there's a substantive, relevant thread going on, it should 
     continue.  I'm simply asking that people use good judgment regarding 
     when to take something "off line".  I don't think the marginal benefit 
     of doing _everything_ "on line" is worth the productivity drain.  
     
     Personally, someone is more likely to get a prompt reply from me by 
     sending me a direct e-mail than by posting it to BPCS-L.  I am also 
     more likely to indiscriminately blow unread BPCS-L messages away than 
     those in my "main" inbox as I don't consider them action items.
     
     To each his/her own in BPCS-L, but be considerate is all I ask.
     
     Kevin


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: disagree w/Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines
Author:  BPCS-L@midrange.com at Internet
Date:    02/07/2000 11:23 AM


I'm going to have to disagree with this suggestion.  I would like to retain 
the ability to decide what to read and what to delete.  As soon as things go 
off-line an important piece of information may be discussed that one of us 
lurkers may not have thought of.  Besides, when you go off-line you're not 
always assured of getting a response, and who knows what tidbit of info you 
may not have thought of yourself.
     
Use the subject line wisely to give reader's an idea of content if it 
changes.  
Remember, the delete key is real handy.  Just make sure you go to your 
deleted file (if you have one) and empty the trash.
     
Regarding addressing the response to a particular person, it is a good idea 
to use their name if you don't include any part of their original message. 
We all just have to remember to delete out the stuff we don't need.
     
Well that's enough from me.  This message will not self distruct! I leave it 
up to you. :-))
     
Best regards from a lurker who cares, 
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin_Catlin@GM.cytec.com [mailto:Kevin_Catlin@GM.cytec.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 10:19 AM
To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re[2]: Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines 
<snip>     
     If someone posts a problem/question (Peter in this case), then others 
     post a response/solution (you, Rindi), that should be the extent of 
     the "public" exchange on BPCS-L in my view.  All persons with 
     follow-up questions (including "lurkers") for those with solutions can 
     ask them "privately" (off BPCS-L).   
     
     When I posted a question about something (see post about Returnable 
     Containers) and found out who had a suggestion (<RBakker@MhiMee.NL>) I 
     wrote to him privately to see if he could send me documentation, etc. 
     Why clutter up BPCS-L with that?
     
     <big snip>
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com. 
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. 
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---

Received: from unknown-27-151.cytec.com. ([204.48.27.204]) by stnt01.cytec.com
with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.12) id 001F6334; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:17:14 -0500
Received: from mail02-ewr.pilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
unknown-27-151.cytec.com. with ESMTP id MAA25933; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:15:11 -0500
(EST)
Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (Uucp1.mcs.net [192.160.127.93]) by
mail02-ewr.pilot.net with ESMTP id MAA22570; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:15:10 -0500
(EST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
        by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.8) with UUCP id LAA51586;
        Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:05:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
        by midrange.dynip.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA22257
        for bpcs-l-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:31:40 -0600
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
        by midrange.dynip.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with UUCP id KAA22242
        for BPCS-L@midrange.com; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:31:29 -0600
Received: from pmdf (mail.sgcna.com [207.106.118.100])
        by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA45623
        for <BPCS-L@midrange.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:24:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by PMDF.SGCNA.COM (PMDF V5.2-32 #41087)
 id <0FPK00E01IWU0Y@SGCNA.COM> for BPCS-L@midrange.com; Mon,
 7 Feb 2000 11:24:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sgc_exch1_vf.sgcna.com ([161.120.36.35])
 by PMDF.SGCNA.COM (PMDF V5.2-32 #41087)
 with ESMTP id <0FPK00COQIWU81@SGCNA.COM> for BPCS-L@midrange.com; Mon,
 07 Feb 2000 11:24:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by SGC_EXCH1_VF with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
 id <1JHDKWMV>; Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:23:02 -0500
Content-return: allowed
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:23:01 -0500
From: "Mack, Robert M." <Robert.M.Mack@sgcna.com>
Subject: Re[2]: disagree w/Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines
To: "'BPCS-L@midrange.com'" <BPCS-L@midrange.com>
Message-id: <3B9FE404570CD311968B00902778A967111352@SGC_EXCH1_VF>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-bpcs-l@midrange.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
X-List-Name: BPCS Users Mailing List (BPCS-L@midrange.com)