Ed I think your absolutely right about off topic posting , there should be a
censoring body formed to read each message before it's posted , content
analyzed and those questions , comments or observations that seem pertainate
will be posted , all others will be sent back to the sender with a stiff
warning, maybe a demerit system should also be established likewise. 3
demerits and it's curtains , then again if this was true we wouldn't see
either of our messages would we??? Mark James & Peta Susan Bethke
3001 South Ocean Dr. Suite 4-V
Hollywood, Florida
33019-2804
U.S.A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Foster <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Tomorrow
 
 
>At 08:02 AM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Tim wrote:
>>>
>>> I know this may seem a little off normal guidelines but
>>> just wanted to remind everyone about tomorrow.  Barbara
>>> Walters Special with guess who (Monica Lewinski).
>>>
>>> Anyways, to get back on subject.  Is anyone out there
>>> familiar with background on Sea Horses or Cone Snails?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tim
>
>
>>Way off base and totally inappropriate. There might be other listservs
>>where this is welcomed but I don't think this is one of them. I can't
>>speak for everyone but I doubt there is much interest for this type of
>>journalistic trash (just my opinion), within our ranks.
>
>I agree with you, not because it's journalistic trash (which it is), but
>because it's OFF-TOPIC.  This is a concept that seems to have escaped a lot
>of posters to this mailing list.  The list should be limited to things
>malacological, not flying pigs, not virus alerts (virtually all of which
>are hoaxes), not the "great" joke you just heard and can't wait to share,
>and not various other bits of off-topic trivia I've seen posted here.
>People who want to discuss such things should find more appropriate mailing
>lists to discuss them and keep this list on-topic, or carry it on as a
>private email exchange between themselves.  We've lost at least one person,
>who publically unsubscribed after getting fed up with the amount of drek he
>had to sort through to find on-topic posts, and who knows how many others
>may have silently given up because of the low signal to noise ratio in this
>list.  A mailing list that experiences as many off-topic posts as this one
>has, loses usefullness.  Let's see if we can  get this list back on topic
>and keep it there.
>
>>I don't mean to
>>flame but I guess I am just so tired of this and I thought I had a
>>refuge here amongst the shellers.
>
>Thanks for saying it, it needed to be said.
>