NavList:

   

Reply

[sorry to take so long replying to this... I've  been at the beach]

Geoffrey Kolbe wrote:
"Given the nature of this  list, I can envisage circumstances where many of
us might prefer to use an  older computer, which is still adequate for
certain tasks like keeping up  with emails while on the move, but which
won't be a serious loss in the event  of an inundation."

Sure. I'm a big believer in old computers (except for  certain specific
tasks). But one can carry this too far. Three-year-old machines  are usually
available for a song, and they can handle nearly any net-based  task.

And:
"The computer I was using at the weekend certainly falls  into that category.
Its go faster stripes are now seriously faded, and the  email reader does
not have the option of leaving attachments."

Does it  have a basic web browser? There are numerous free, web-based e-mail
services  (just one example: hotmail), and apparently all of them conveniently
separate  attachments from plain text so that the attachments can be
downloaded later (IF  you want them).

And concluded:
"As things stand on the Nav-L list, I  have no "issue". If the list was to
allow general uninvited attachments  (effectively spam), just because some
of us are too discourteous or lazy to  find out who actually wants the
attachments, then I certainly would have an  "issue"."

"Spam" is a phenomenon quite distinct from the issue of  attachments.
Attachments can be extremely useful. Myself, I have not used them  on the list since
I have access to lost of extra web site space, but that's just  me. I don't
think it's correct to label anyone as "discourteous or lazy" for  using
attachments on a mailing list. Those folks who have used them --Fred  Hebard, Joel
Jacobs, Richard Langley, etc.-- were not being discourteous or  lazy.

-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N  72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars

   

Reply