Anne & Roger Green wrote:
>
> Russell Woodford wrote:
> >
> > Hey! Folks!
> >
> > Can we keep the traffic down by sending witty replies just to the original
> > sender?
> Sorry to disagree, but a short, witty message is always welcome on my
> computer screen (and I do pay my own internet bills). The recent ref. to
> Archaeopteryx made me chortle out loud!
> Anne Green
Sorry Anne
I can only support Russell on the NEED to cut down on unnecessary
messages. I have spent too much time wading through wading through junk
on Birding-aus (yes, I do have a sense of humour!). Also, have you
noticed the number of misdirected "unsubscribe" messages posted on the
network? Maybe people are voting with their feet and leaving
birding-aus in droves (that really is a pity, it's been a good network)-
how ironic that their messages are contributing to the clutter on
birding-aus (how else could they have missed Laurie's recent instruction
to post unsubscribe messages to <>? Can Russell
give some idea if these "unsubscribers" are greater in number than usual?
Joke messages aside, I think that people can easily further reduce the
clutter of messages by replying directly to someone making an enquiry
and not to the network, and by trying not to push topics for too long.
No doubt this new topic of reducing the number of messages will generate
MORE than enough traffic, but it will enhance the value of Birding-aus by
encouraging subscribers rather than scaring then away.
For anyone who wants to reply to me direct, please use the attached email
address (you wont catch me on Birding-aus because I've unsubscribed for
obvious reasons!).
Thanks
George
|
