[13179] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Bright spots from the old PACS-L?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Walt Crawford)
Thu Mar 16 20:21:26 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:17:48 -0800
From: Walt Crawford <Walt_Crawford@NOTES.RLG.ORG>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-Id: <882568A4.00540756.00@NOTES.RLG.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Bill,
Thanks for the response (which I may use), but I'd like to clarify one sentence:
>Some things clearly
>did belong on PACS-L such as the FINS stuff but other items and threads
^^^^^^^
>should have been allowed.
Should there be a "not" between "did" and "belong"? Otherwise, the rest of the
sentence doesn't quite sound right...and I'm sort of hoping that you're not
actually saying that Vigdor's socialist tantrums were central to PACS-L.
(Oops: I'm showing an opinion there...)
In fact, as I start to integrate comments from moderators & participants into my
original rough draft article, I'm wondering how I'll wind up moderating my
original commentary about, well, the moderation. (I feel that the tendency to
cut off discussions, to insist that responses go only to the questioner, and to
group messages together for posting helped to turn PACS-L from a lively forum
into a bulletin board. I'll probably soften that message long before submitting
something to American Libraries...)
Anyway: your call. If there's a missing "not," just let me know.
-walt crawford-
