This Mailinglist - another vote for sanity

[Eric Dunbar]

> > I get really bored with this sort of pedantic argument -- this is like
> The origin is the sender and not the list. Once again. A reply should go
> to the sender. That's the purpose of a reply.
> > Except that you're missing the point entirely... it is the *minority*
> > that want to answer only the sender... the *majority* would want to
> 
> You are not the majority. There is a half dozen, maybe a dozen, who
> > No, you should go and see a therapist about your attitude mate! You are
> > *so* patronising, and it is unnecessary. This "I am right, so all you
> > thickos should stop posting" is not helpful at all.
> Thanks for the offence.
> Do you have such a bad characteristic that you must offend other people
> if they don't have the same opinion?
> Here we know a saying: Someone who sits in a glasshouse shouldn't throw
> stones.

Not to pick on the individuals who happen to be quoted (just random
sampling from the most recent e-mail)!

There are now a lot of flames and patronising posts appearing in this
thread (mostly between a select few individuals)!

(a) we have no idea how many people support/oppose reply-to-sender,
reply-to-list;
(b) there have been a lot of opinions on where a reply should go,
sender or list;
(c) silence does not imply consent (only yes means yes) or agreement
with any particular point of view;
(d) changing or retaining the current behaviour of reply-to will not
result in a mass exodus of expertise (I don't think any of us are
really that petty);
(e) most of us really don't know our derriere from a hole in the ground; and,
(f) I suspect even more don't CARE.

Eric.