DEVON-L Archives

Archiver > DEVON > 1998-11 > 0910570126


From: "Thomas R Cole" <>
Subject: Re: Multiple replies
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:08:46 -0500


If this extra charge is some kind of law or tax - why not change it. Throw a
Tea Party. Get rid of the bloody fee.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Retter <>
To: <>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple replies

>>Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:45:25 +1100
>>To: Brian Randell <>
>>From: Michael D Retter <>
>>Subject: Re: Multiple replies
>>
>>At 10:30 4/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>>>Hi:
>>>
>>>Might I gently suggest that it would be more informative if people, in
>>>stating whether or not they like to see all replies to all queries, would
>>>indicate whether their connection to the Internet is one that takes
>>>advantage of free (or extremely cheap) local calls, or instead one that
>>>involves their having to pay non-trivial telephone charges that are all
>>>calculated based on connection time - as is the case for many people here
>>>in the UK (i.e. many of the people who provide answers to questions).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Brian Randell
>>To Brian et al
>>
>>My server fees are around 7 pence per minute, and a local telephone call
>fee of around 20P non timed (i.e. unlimited).
>>
>>However, my normal mode of operation is to log on, download all mail from
>the server, and log off, and usually I can do that in under 2 minutes. Then
>all vetting, reading, discarding or whatever, and replies, postings etc are
>composed at leisure whilst offline.
>>
>>Therefore, I am in favour of all replies being posted to the list. This
>way the possibilities of usable information, comment, advice, even humour
>are much wider.
>>
>>Just one person's view.
>>
>>Mike Retter
>>Sydney
>>
>
>
>Try <http://www.artmarquetry.com/gallery/mretter/mr.html>;
>
>

This thread: