 | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
| | | | (...) What do you think? (...) You could infer that. (...) That would be a stretch. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | | (...) I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that the contents won't normally be revealed... (...) I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication. I think (despite some comments by others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
| | | | | | | (...) I think you're right -- removing it may be best, and I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. It doesn't get used often, and it would do just as well to give an email link there. As to its purpose/intention, it just happened to be an easy thing to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Scott Arthur
| | | | | (...) I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind. Scott A (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | | |
