[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Gear Test Notifications - Tabulations to date
- Subject: [pct-l] Gear Test Notifications - Tabulations to date
- From: wandering_bob at comcast.net (Bob Bankhead)
- Date: Wed Dec 31 21:15:34 2003
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
It is no surprise that you would have emails that never got copied to the
list. The list sends its messages to each subscriber's email. From there, if
they chose REPLY, their message goes only to the person who posted and
subscribers never see it. If they choose REPLY ALL, then a copy goes to the
list as well as to the poster.
That said, one can only analyze the data one has, and the only source
available to the public is the list archives. Hence, that is the data I used
and, as I said, 11 responses out of a subscriber population of several
hundred is a poor sample. It is however the only sample available. My
comments about the unresponsive sheep still remains valid.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the reviews and the discussions on the BPGT
group and website. I just don't think they belong here.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Priest" <email@example.com>
To: "PCT List Forum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Gear Test Notifications - Tabulations to date
> At 09:41 AM 01/01/2004, Bob Bankhead wrote:
> >Mr. Priest seems to think that opinon favors his postings.
> >They do not.
> Hi Bob
> Actually, as I have got quite a bit of email direct and not through the
> list (the list does not appear to be set to automatically reply to the
> list, at least not for me), your claim is not quite as accurate as you
> suggest. I would suggest care is always needed in claiming "facts" when
> don't have all the information. Also please note when I made that
> statement! Using emails post that point in time to discredit the
> is not, IMO, a very constructive approach to the debate. Had a made that
> statement now, I would be more inclined to accept your premise, except for
> the private emails.
> That said I will not be posting the announcement here. While the response
> is balanced in terms of emails I have received and I have ok from Ryan as
> understand it, I have no intention of antangonising folks, hence why I
> asked in the first place.
> Thanks for your feedback.
> Andrew Priest