Re: Request for Change

Subject: Re: Request for Change
From: "Cramer, Kim" <kcramer -at- NCSLINK -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:47:00 -0700

I also agree that many of the recent topics have been pertinent and
interesting!

*************
Kim Cramer
kcramer -at- ncslink -dot- com
Sr. Information Developer
NCS Education
*************

----------
From: Beverly Parks
To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: Request for Change
Date: Thursday, February 08, 1996 10:45AM

Or at least I think that was the subject Eric gave it. I decided
I wanted to comment on it AFTER I deleted the message.

I think the types of topics Eric is suggesting are appropriate
and desirable, BUT I don't see why they can't coexist with the
less-pressing topics of style and grammar.

I've noticed a marked and satisfying decrease in the number of
off-topic posts to techwr-l. Let's hope that trend continues.

But I feel that Eric's recent request is chiseling away at
topics that at least some of us find interesting and pertinent.

=*= Beverly Parks -- bparks -at- huachuca-emh2 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "I am not speaking for my employer." =*=


Previous by Author: Re: Name for group of icons
Next by Author: WINHELP moving to HTML
Previous by Thread: Re: Request for change
Next by Thread: Re: Request for change


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads