Dear George and Friends,
To me the perfect error message performance actually now functions in
reverse. It is in fact an electronic Good Housekeeping seal of approval
in our chaotic age. When our fragile world teeters on the brink of
economic collapse, terrorists regularly bomb major urban centers, the
Polar ice caps are breaking off and floating away and countless species
are disappearing with stunning alacrity we at <[log in to unmask]> have
our dear friend, the rejected message posting steadfast by our side.
Like a lighthouse on a storm-tossed sea or a familiar blanket in the
midst of Russian winter or a warm hearth on an unforgiving day we know
with absolute confidence that our message has indeed arrived safe and
sound. Safe in this knowledge we can power down, outen the lights and
climb into our respective beds with a degree of certainty and
satisfaction unmatched by those confused and tenuous souls that exist
outside these hallowed (fire) walls...
Vaya con dios my darlings,
George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> Hello Mike, rising to the challenge!
> No, I have no way of easily finding out when others have posted complaints to
> this list about this idiosyncratic feature, unless it is in the subject line
> (or else I have to wait for a longish search). But teaching us not to respect
> messages is the sort of things that makes you disobey traffic rules, and I
> suppose it may create a drinking problem if you did not have one already.
> It has been stated before: those who receive their own mailing back via
> ARSCLIST have no problem at all, because they realize that the error message
> is the error (McLuhan with a twist). But those, whose system prevents this
> think that it is a real problem; they have no way of knowing that the message
> went through loud and clear.
> I am apparently a much too frequent poster. Since 22 May 2009 I have received
> 156 such messages. It seems it was then it started, in the middle of a
> discussion of pest control. Some pest!
> Kind regards,
>> Art Shifrin wrote:
>>> I am reposting this because it was rejected by the evidently absurd
>>> of redundancy that 'rules' this list.
>>> It happens (at least to me) too often. IF it is again rejected, then I
>> will desist from trying
>>> tio share information with this list: instead
>>> providing information only to specific posters.
> Mike Biel wrote:
>> You are not paying attention. This has been explained on the list over
>> and over and over and over.
>> EVERYBODY GETS THIS MESSAGE *EVERY* TIME AND EVERYTHING GETS POSTED
>> I will get a message about this message. And you will get another if
>> you post a reply. It just happens and the Library of Congress seems to
>> be unable to fix the problem, so we live with it and keep telling
>> newbies and others who haven't been paying attention about the problem
>> again and again.
>> Perhaps George Brock-Nannestad can give us the statistic on how many
>> times someone has told a poster about this problem. Must be, what, 30
>> or 40 times at least.
>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]