Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:18:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b9) with ESMTP id 1802536 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:42:40 -0400 Received: from Epijk@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.fc.1f40492b (4320) for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Epijk@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:42:37 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Splitting up the List? X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fc.1f40492b.2ad7403d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10637 --part1_fc.1f40492b.2ad7403d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/10/2002 11:02:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, valin.b.thorn1@jsc.nasa.gov writes: <<<...There would still be an "ALL" channel that submitters can send to...>>> The problem with that methodology is that it enables the submitter to determine (by omniscience, perhaps??) who might be interested in his post, rather than the correct (current) method of enabling the READER to determine whether he has any interest in the subject. I, for one, will never build a Lancair aircraft, but I have great interest in the technology and methodology discussed herein (what problems others encounter and how those problems are solved). Many times, these solutions have applicability far beyond the limited world of plastic airplanes. There is a large number of highly qualified writers in this forum, and to arbitrarily limit the dissemination of their thoughts would be a disservice to the intent of the LML. And for those who enjoy critiquing grammar, "IS" is the appropriate verb when NUMBER is the object, since the word "NUMBER" is singular. And, BTW, PHENOMENA is plural. When a single manifestation is being discussed, the word is PHENOMENON. And VORTICES are multiple occurrences of a VORTEX, not a "vorticee" or whatever. Now, this is useful information, but if the list were "channeled", think of how many needy folks would miss such pearls Jack Kane EPI, Inc. --part1_fc.1f40492b.2ad7403d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/10/2002 11:02:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, valin.b.thorn1@jsc.nasa.gov writes:

<<<...There would still be an "ALL" channel that submitters can send to...>>>

The problem with that methodology is that it enables the submitter to determine (by omniscience, perhaps??) who might be interested in his post, rather than the correct (current) method of enabling the READER to determine whether he has any interest in the subject.

I, for one, will never build a Lancair aircraft, but I have great interest in the technology and methodology discussed herein (what problems others encounter and how those problems are solved). Many times, these solutions have applicability far beyond the limited world of plastic airplanes. There is a large number of highly qualified writers in this forum, and to arbitrarily limit the dissemination of their thoughts would be a disservice to the intent of the LML.

And for those who enjoy critiquing grammar, "IS" is the appropriate verb when NUMBER is the object, since the word "NUMBER" is singular. And, BTW,  PHENOMENA is plural. When a single manifestation is being discussed, the word is PHENOMENON. And VORTICES are multiple occurrences of a VORTEX, not a "vorticee" or whatever. Now, this is useful information, but if the list were "channeled", think of how many needy folks would miss such pearls

Jack Kane
EPI, Inc. --part1_fc.1f40492b.2ad7403d_boundary--