Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelvx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!denelcor!denelvx!gmack
From: gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: net.personals
Message-ID: <140@denelvx.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 04:14:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: denelvx.140
Posted: Mon Sep 16 04:14:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 06:24:40 EDT
References: <136@denelvx.UUCP> <498@moncol.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorados
Lines: 25

ME:
> ]An alternative solution might be to include the fact that you are available
> ]in the signature line of your articles to net.singles (and only net.singles)
> ]Then if someone happens to be smitten with your wit, charm, and personality
> ]and wishes to woo you, they will know by your signature line whether or not
> ]you care to receive the attention....

JOHN RUSCHMEYER:
> I have a problem with that idea: As it is now, many people "abuse" the
> signature by including every possible mail path, street address, phone
> number, etc. in their signature, as well as the ubiquitous quote.

Why would anyone reading netnews need anyone's street address?  Unless, of
course, they were sending you surface mail, in which case, couldn't they
ask you for it?  And, why the disclaimer?  Aren't we all aware that the
views expressed here are our own, not our companies'?  Eliminating just
those two items would give you enough room for your "status report."

> I even admit my own guilt in this matter. If you look down at my signature,
> you will see that it is already overburdened. 

Naahh!

Gregg Mackenzie
denelcor!gmack


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com