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

["Ben Colletti"<bcollett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Bob.
There may be something that I think is not relevant when I first read a posting
but the responses will 'jog' something that is useful.  Also, this change would
create more work for me because I would have to make some response to a posting
in order to read what everyone has to say about a problem.  Today, if I want to
keep informed, I just have to read my e-mail and the only time I have to respond
is if I have some feedback.  Please don't change the way this is handled because
I think a valuable tool will become less valuable.
Ben

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re[2]: disagree w/Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines 
Author: <BPCS-L@midrange.com>
Date:       2/7/2000 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
+---


+---
| 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
+---