I think it's time to get back to bulbs. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Erik Van Lennep <erik@tepuidesign.com> wrote: > Personally, I think it's a far better plan to think about (and then agree > and apply) a solution to this, as a group, than to give up. > > What's at stake? > > > - Possible loss of useful and important information, due to slogging > through endless repetitions of threads. Think of it as verbal, or "e-" > pollution. Dumping our debris into each others mailboxes. > - Likely loss of list members, due to frustration, impatience, or simple > lack of time to wade through said endless repetition. > - Reduction of online community of practice, expertise, and friendship, > resulting in a smaller group consisting of those who have enough time on > their hands to do the above slogging process. > - Reduction of sources of new seeds and bulbs, because people drop out > of the list (got you on this one, eh??) > > So come on folks, what we are discussing is protocol here, and then > processes for managing that. > > If we can get a robot to Mars, I think we should be able to edit our posts. > > erik > ............ > > > re: > > From: Mary Sue Ittner <msittner@mcn.org> > > Subject: [pbs] Including the previous messages in your posts > > > > > > > > *For the sake of a very large group of digest subscribers and to keep the > > archives clean please do not include the previous message/s you are > > responding to when you reply. ....Doing this will make a lot of people > very > > happy.* > > > > and: > > > > > > From: Kenneth <k.preteroti@verizon.net> > > > > * ......what you are asking is a losing battle.* > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >