Digesting the digest

[John Hofstetter <hofs@domain.elided>]

>I can only hope that Rod gets to read all the posts in response to his
>little tirade and rethink his position. Otherwise, again, in my opinion,
>he is going to get left on the "junk heap" by some other firms who
>exploit this money making opportunity by working with us instead of
>against us. After all, we're pretty much a captive constituency, aren't
>we?
>
>Tom H.

Tom,
I think you missed an interesting point in Rod's comments. I assume that 
he had John Glancy send his response because he, Rod, doesn't participate 
in the Internet thing. I believe he also says in his response that he 
doesn't participate in the Internet. So, I would assume somebody took 
this story to him about the weatherstripping, certainly out of the 
context of being a small part of the sharing that goes on within the 
digest, and without knowing the players, the context, the varying levels 
of expertise on the digest, he blasted us with a sweeping 
overgeneralization. The more I think of it, the more I feel it was no big 
deal. 

I thought Rob Mark's comments in support of Rod's overgeneralization was 
more significant because Rob seemed to fail to realize that a reason, if 
not the major reason which I think it was, for the Northwest Binders 
great success in enlarging the participation in their Monroe affair, had 
to have been the Digest. Rob certainly has absolute right to criticize 
and to participate or not to participate in the digest, but after meeting 
him, and after he met us digesters, I thought we had a relationship 
different than he perceives it. 

John H.