Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:29:33PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I find your note puzzling.
> In a few minutes you already did a better job
> than what's up there-then say what's up there  can't reasonably be
> improved on.  Then you call it "exactly" accurate!
[...]
> "Exactly"?  Having yourself described how this is not the case, I find
> this remark utterly Orwellian.

You seem to be studiously ignoring the obvious, apparently to win 
points in some game I don't fully understand.

Let me rephrase things to hopefully make the obvious more clear: Modulo
an absolutely petty quibble about the meaning of "with rules", the web
page is exactly accurate.  In particular the page lists 4 archives under
the heading "with rules", and one archive under the heading "full". 
This is precisely accurate.  Each of the 4 archives under the first
heading is of an email list that has had filters ("rules") applied.  The
archive under the heading "full" has not had filters applied.

In other words, the headings exactly describe the archives under them.

Your call to identify the precise timing and nature of the rules
applied, in my opinion, simply speaks to a lack of understanding of the
complexity involved.  Some of the events involved were rather
complicated, as when Baptista mailbombed the list, giving it an instant
backlog of over 70,000 messages.  I'm sure it would be interesting to
know all those details, but it takes time and energy to satisfy your
scholarly curiosity. 

Anyway, the first thing to do with a dead horse is dismount...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html