[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: annoyed?
In a message dated 11/24/98 3:52:36 PM EST, aet at mail_dntcj.ro writes:
> Kendrickjd at aol_com wrote:
>
> > oh my god. it is starting again...
> > don't people still get shelly's list of no-no's when they sign up for the
> > list?
> > annoyed--
> > jan
>
> I suppose you have a right to be annoyed. But if you are going to be a
> stickler about the rules posted I would say that the majority of postings
> would have to be cut. I would say that if someone has the *right* to post
> multiple topics such as gay dolls and sex, etc, etc, etc.. that one should
> have just as much right to post christian beliefs... in fact post any
> religious (whatever the religion) beliefs for all I care. If I don't want
to
> read, I won't.
it wasn't the content of the post so much as the context. a long, scrolly,
forward type thing. i don't care if it's scripture or the neiman marcus
cookie recipe or "this chain letter was started in 1869 by two sweedish
paraplegics and has never been broken, not even during the transition from
post to e-mail which must have occured at some point of time unless sweedish
paraplegics had some sort of technological advantage in the 1860's that i
didn't learn about in high school". it's bad enough when someone sends
something like that to me *specifically*...as though they believe it will be
of interest to me. sure, it's pretty, but it belongs in private mail. most
mailing lists do not tolerate that sort of thing.
love,
sha
Follow-Ups: