Sat, 16 Mar 1996 17:37:39 -0500
|
At 21:16 03/16/96 EST, you wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:36:27 -0500 Philo <[log in to unmask]> said:
>
>>Your reply that even though a large number of listowners wanted it, and
>>I only remember seeing two that didn't (which could be solved with a
>>switch),
>
>First off, we need to keep things in proportion here. A *small* number of
>list owners (say a dozen or so) said they wanted it. An even smaller
>number said they did not want it. Thousands of other list owners said
>nothing. From this I concluded that this would be a good feature to add
>as time permits. However, this is not the only feature that it would be
>good to add as time permits. Everything has to be prioritized.
>
>>you told us that you had better things to do with your programming time,
>>and we should just deal with it.
>
>No, I said our programming time was currently spent on items with a
>higher priority. This doesn't mean it will never get done, but it does
>mean it is not going to get done right now.
>
> Eric
>
As I said, if I misunderstood, I apologize, so I apologize. I had gotten the
impression that you had simply dismissed the idea, instead of adding it to
the wishlist file. I retract my "deaf ears" comment. :)
Philo
|
|
|