Re: UUC Digest

["Rob Levinson" <always_coca-cola@xxxxxxx>]

An open letter to Richard Welty and the BMW Digest:

Richard,

    First, I really should thank you.  Without your efforts in setting up
this original BMW Digest, I would not have met some of my very best friends.
Nor would the UUC Digest have come into existence.  I've said this before,
and I'm sure I'll repeat it in the future.

    Second, I really should apologize.  I didn't mean for the tone of my
post to have been anti-BMW Digest.  It really should have been targeted at
the "instigator" (not named here) who had chosen to attack the UUC Digest in
public, and me in private.  That person harbors a bitterness from being
administratively banned from the UUC Digest for excessive flaming, posting
of private e-mail, and generally very bad netiquette.  As far as the concept
of "freedom of speech" goes, he's the *only* person that I've done that to
(short of barring known spammers).  It wasn't right of me, as a guest on the
BMW Digest, to post in a way that could be construed as rude.  For that, I
apologize.

    Finally, you're right in that there shouldn't be any flame war.  The UUC
Digest doesn't consider the BMW Digest as an adversary, and I hope the
feeling is mutual.  We're all here out of interest and enjoyment.  If it
wasn't fun, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.  Both Digests have their share of
BS, that's the nature of an open forum.  Usually the BS comes in waves,
spurred by a specific thread.  We do what we can to reduce it.

Best  regards,
- - Rob Levinson
UUC Digest ListOwner

> From: Richard Welty <rwelty@domain.elided>
> Subject: administrivia: some more flaming guidelines
>
> i now see that Rob's posting was indeed sent to this list -- which makes
> quoting it again ok, except...
>
> i really, really, realy don't want to see any sort of flamewar about the
> relative merits of the two lists here. OK?
>
> richard

------------------------------