Re: [KLF] RE: [OT] Re: mccartney and streisand (!)
Thomas, by using the cancer analogy (which i take to be a negative comment) are you suggesting that you would prefer the list to be barely registering a pulse.
Not really, but I would like to come home after an evening at the cinema and NOT have to dig through 30+ emails of the same discussions over and over again, person x flaming person y for not believing in theory z and so on. The small rain of OT posts have become a flood of reiterations with the same people ruminating their point of view. I will be in London the whole next week, and it already sends a cold shiver down my spine when I think of my Outlook's inbox...
are you suggesting that you would prefer the list to be barely registering a pulse.
whilst the extra traffic isnt necessarily bad (not saying its great either), i've ignored most of it based on subject headers. could some one post with a subject line of "what was posted that actually concerned the klf this week" ;-)
Personally as long as its labelled as OT i would rather see some life in the list than wondering if there is any point in staying on.
i kinda feel like this - if [ot] is being used properly then a filter can easily be set. i'm a geek - theres a problem and an answer and i'm happy. though it'd be nice if anyone actually mentions klf stuff in an [ot] post, to then resend that bit to the list without [ot]. whether or not i read [ot] depends on the header, and how busy my life is. currently its being ignored unless it happens to arrive in the inbox at the right moment.
I will be in London the whole next week, and it already sends a cold shiver down my spine when I think of my Outlook's inbox...
wishing i wasnt semi-serious, but you could use a rule to "mark read" all the [ot] stuff, then ask for a email with that subjectline above? cheers brendan ps- i saw something about aus go past - i hear klf stuff on the radio more than rarely but less than often. its only ever 3am or j&a with tammy.
participants (2)
-
brendan -
thomas＠klf.de