> >This is no doubt true in some cases but definitely not in  all cases.
                    ^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^                ^^^     ^^^^^^^^^
> >  [my experiences deleted here]
 
> And I thought I  was the most stubborn person on this  list. How long are
> you going  to blame BITNET for  (1) the fact  that a 9.6k line  is slower
> than a 56k line  (or whatever it is you are using) and  (2) the fact that
> your connection to BITNET is through inferior software that emulates only
> the most basic subset of the protocol?
 
Did I blame bitnet for it?  I don't think so.  I said that bitnet may
be better for listserv mail IN SOME CASES but NOT IN ALL CASES.  It is
NOT better in my case.  I said nothing about why that was true since
I know nothing about why it's true.  All I know about our bitnet link
is that it somehow rides upon our internet link but that the internet
link stays up when the bitnet link is dead.  That probably has to do
with human neglect of the bitnet link.  But the point is that my posting
at no time "blamed" bitnet for anything.  It simply stated a fact:  for
me, internet is better than bitnet 99.99% of the time.
   --Natalie ([log in to unmask])
     who will no doubt receive personal mail from e-friends on the list
     asking me whether I realize I'm arguing with the genius who wrote
     LISTSERV -- I do -- I'm brave on e-mail :-)