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