Re: @Scott Bennett

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:33:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>>>> Ah, I see.  It is the duplicate messages from you that were
>>>>> confusing me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why duplicate messages?  As somebody else has pointed out recently,
>>>>> the fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to
>>>>> or-talk.
>>>> 
>>>> Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     What about it?

>>>> lists.
>>> 
>>> RFC 1855 does not say any such thing, and it's usually frowned upon
>>> on virtually every mailing list that I frequent. YMMV.
>> 
>> Did someone claim that RFC 1855 said something on this issue?
>
>You did.
>
     That is false.  I've just searched through all of my postings to
OR-TALK since last August.  My followup to *your* claim is the only one
until right now that contained the string "1855".  You must be thinking
of someone else.
     I've already offered not to send you direct copies of my followups
to your messages.  Drop it.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************