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