Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA086723736; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:55:36 -0800 Return-Path: <dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis> Received: from gate.cpmc.org (firewall-user@gate.cpmc.org-DeleteThis [205.226.130.2]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6 HPLabs Relay) with ESMTP id IAA02582 for <wind_talk@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by gate.cpmc.org; id IAA24472; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.8.49.47) by gate.cpmc.org via smap (V3.1.1) id xma024461; Mon, 26 Jan 98 08:54:50 -0800 Message-Id: <v02140b00b0f26dfc53e5@[10.8.49.47]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:52:30 -0800 To: wind_talk@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis From: dfielder@cooper.cpmc.org-DeleteThis (David R. Fielder) Subject: Reply to Luigi
My vote is just a bit too picky. My experience with email communications
is that it is much more difficult to convey intentions compared to actual
conversation. Thus, becomes easier to assume the worst. Also, it is a
slow process, with inherent delays due to computer access, how servers
delay sending and receiving messages (mysterious at times, at least to me),
and peoples' schedules. I would urge a bit of slack and/or a telephone
call in person before assuming a rip-off was in progress. However, I do
agree very much with your position re your publication. There should be a
payment for publication on their website, as it is a form of their
advertising.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 01:59:34 PST