ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] List Rules - Version 4

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Version 4
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:22:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=D9xtlxDrOx8Y6EWxdXMVRxmuTkWlJYwomKqvA9sA7xEDdjC8IZaxBlIvkZBBP+Zp; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Debbie and all,

  Well you are an adult, not a 5 year old, Debbie.  Doing
a reply-all is NOT the problem anyway.  "Doing" the trimming
of the CC's is.  I have two daughters, now past 5 yrs
of age, however even when they were 5, I never had to
remind them more than twice.  Food for thought, perhaps?

  However the best fix for this is for Kent to fix the
Reply-all so that you can only reply to ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
which is how a list like this should be configured in the
first place.  Kent knows how to do this, but for
reasons unknown to me and others whom have requested this
be done some 3+ years ago and periodically sense than, has
not done so.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Aug 2, 2007 4:49 AM
>To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Version 4
>
> 
>Hi Jeff
>
>Responses in line:
>
>> First and again, please trim/discontinue CC'ing already 
>> subscribed GA list members as you yourself have mentioned 
>> several times, as it is incredibly rude and a waste of band 
>> width.  This will be the 14th time I have trimmed them for 
>> you.  So again please practice what you preach.
>
>Thank you for the reminder.  It will take me a while to get used to the new
>rules instead of just clicking reply all - a habit hard to break. :-)
>
>> Second, about Version 4 of the Rule..
>> 
>>   Rule:
>>  "not using what may be perceived as offensive or 
>> inflammatory language"
>> 
>> ?: what is the definition of the terms "inflammatory 
>> language" in context of these proposed set of rules?
>
>> ...[original message trimmed]
>
>> Therefore, and as such, I oppose this rule as currently stated...
>
>Would you like to re-draft this particular paragraph or would the following
>suffice?
>
>---
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>