Re: attachment acrimony

[Frank Heydenrych frankh@xxxxxxxx]

Gee, Robert, it's nice to see such tolerance. Maybe you should follow the
rest of the dialogue and see how some people have assisted rather than
assume some moral high-ground.

Those people helped me solve the problem. And I thank them.
Like it or not, the days of XyWrite 128 are gone, and gone for good. Now
we're on the WWW, with all its "standards", there will be glitches,
deliberate or not. It might help you and other shoot-from-the-hip
specialists to consider intent: do people do things deliberately, and when
they're drawn to their attention, do they try to fix them?

But I'm wasting my time and others' time responding to you, aren't I?

At 07:11 23/06/00 -0500, you wrote:
> "Slightly" annoying? "Gratuitously" rude? It would be gratuitous -- without
> apparent justification or cause -- if this was a new issue. How many times
> have the rules (no HTML, no pointless verbatim quoting) been
> reiterated here? Twenty? Thirty? How many off-topic msgs have been sent
> dealing with the consequences, such as that virus that somebody was dragging
> around a few weeks ago? How many minutes have been wasted checking
> those stupid attachments for content? Carl *very courteously* discusses this
> in his welcome.msg (to the CCAT forum)! It's a total PITA. The real problem
> is a memory leak in the EXEcutors who perpetrate this.
>
>
> ---------
> Robert Holmgren
> holmgren@xxxxxxxx
> ---------