Woops.   I read your note but missed that I was replying to the same
OT: -less message.  The thread started out "OT:" but it somehow got dropped.

IMO people sending requests to use the "OT:" is certainly fair.    More than
fair I would say that maintenance of protocols is a social, list, and
communication management necessity.

Someone else called these reminder messages rude.   They don't have to be.
One problem that often arises is that people are reluctant to say anything.
The flip side is that when people do speak out the bottled up irritation
comes out compounded by their discomfort with breaking the rules by speaking
out.

I received a what appears to be automatic message that IMO was poorly
designed and not very informative.   It doesn't include a copy of the
offending message and it doesn't explain how it came to be generated.   All
that said I certainly empathize with the sender's basic motivation.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Russ Smith
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 6:15 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: APOLOGY
>
>
>I am sorry I didn't use the OT precursor to my post.  I have now
>received eight off line requests that I do so in the future.
>
>In short, "my bad".
>
>Rs~
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *