On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:36:22 -0400 Craig A Summerhill said: >On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > >> > I just thought I'd let you know that I have never heard mention of your >> > *LISTSERV* on the other list. Nor have I ever seen negative comments >> > about any other software. So...no cheap shots are being taken at your >> > software...they're just getting down to business. >> >> It's not my software. It just happens to be the mailing list management >> software that was chosen for my site. > >Well, that pretty much supports my conclusion that these anti-LISTPROC >comments come from the universally ignorant, as well. Thanks for >reinforcing my point for me. Oh... *please*... go back and find where I said anything "anti-LISTPROC". *PLEASE*. Then post your search results. Oh... couldn't find anything? Gee... what a surprise. Now... where was that point of yours again? Oh... there it is... your hair is covering it. >> We'd get down to business, too, if other folks didn't keep bringing >> up other types of software on a list that's not appropriate to those >> types of software. > >99.9% of those comments come from people who are new network users or >who have been thrust into a position of supporting a product for their >institution that they know nothing about. They ask questions out of a >genuine desire to learn more about the product(s) available to them. >If there query is misdirected, just say so. There is no point in >getting nasty with them. I'm not going to apologize for someone else being "nasty" in that situation. I don't think they should be either. But *that* has nothing to do with *this*. If they want comparisons, that's fine... but on a LISTSERV discussion you're going to find things swayed to LISTSERV. On a list about Fords as opposed to GM cars, you're going to find things swayed towards Fords. A person who is genuinely trying to compare products should be intelligent enough to take things with a grain of salt. Btw... I don't think LISTSERV is "perfect" either. (And, believe me, Eric and Nathan will vouch for that.) But I like it. It does what we need here. >> >Just thought you ought to know. >> >> Now ask me if I care. > >That's pretty much what you're teaching them too. What? That I don't care about LISTPROC? Tell me why I should care. It doesn't help me support my clients. And why should I care about LISTPROC on a LISTSERV discussion list? If I were interested in LISTPROC, I'd be on a LISTPROC discussion list.