Responding to msg by randolph@xxxxxxxxxx (Randolph Fritz) on
>In open free lists, by the way, the proportion of
>lurkers to active members is usually very high; I
>think you're worried about something that's actually
>pretty normal.
My petulance came from Howard e-mailing that he keeps the list
membership private even though
the "concealed" and "non-concealed" options are available by
the listerver, and 300+ are listed as
"non-concealed" and only a handful "concealed".
He courteously asks for my understanding of the need for
privacy. He's got it.
Howard also says there are "important" people on the list.
Great, I hope it's not the same media
muggers used throughout the universe to lure people to banal
events.
All his answers came to my inquiry about wanting to know who I
was sweet-talking.
Howard, my sincere thanks again for doing a good job enticing
the bashful, bashless,
soon-to-be notorious bashers of repute (I hope). Got my
checkbook ready, really.
John
>In open free lists, by the way, the proportion of
>lurkers to active members is usually very high; I
>think you're worried about something that's actually
>pretty normal.
My petulance came from Howard e-mailing that he keeps the list
membership private even though
the "concealed" and "non-concealed" options are available by
the listerver, and 300+ are listed as
"non-concealed" and only a handful "concealed".
He courteously asks for my understanding of the need for
privacy. He's got it.
Howard also says there are "important" people on the list.
Great, I hope it's not the same media
muggers used throughout the universe to lure people to banal
events.
All his answers came to my inquiry about wanting to know who I
was sweet-talking.
Howard, my sincere thanks again for doing a good job enticing
the bashful, bashless,
soon-to-be notorious bashers of repute (I hope). Got my
checkbook ready, really.
John