|
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)
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.