Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: wp2latex (1 of 4) Message-ID: <6399@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 20 Aug 90 11:48:14 GMT References: <6387@sugar.hackercorp.com> <19623@well.sf.ca.us> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 23 In article <19623@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer writes: > You posted a list of things you thought should go in the FAQ list. One > of them was not impartial. For our viewers who have tuned into this fun-filled exchange late, I believe that all source postings should have an archive-name header, just like in the moderated groups. A fair number already do. I included a reference to this in my list of proposed topics in an alt.sources FAQ posting. I also solicited feedback... if it's a taboo subject, I'll be happy to drop it. So far, though, only one person has complained. > However, responses of the form "if you won't do it then shut up" are > obnoxious and boring. I have made a valid objection. Answer it, or > shut up. You deleted the portion of my message where I supported this particular item. Might I assume, then, that your response is just more rhetoric? It's pretty poor form to complain about my not performing a certain action in response to a message in which I did that very thing. In addition, where are all these other eager volunteers you were talking about? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .