Subj : Third Party Updates
To   : Thom LaCosta
From : Roy Witt
Date : Fri Sep 08 2000 10:09 am

Hello Thom.

07 Sep 00 22:42, you wrote to me:

 TL>> very specific viewpoint, any one who won't take the time to learn a
 TL>> very simple proceedure is not fullfilling a very simple
 TL>> responsibility.

 RW>> On the contrary, he's not interested in learning the procedure,

 TL> It can't be contrary....it's my viewpoint.  And I have no agreement
 TL> with someone who will not learn a simple procedure.

Contrary to your viewpoint, it's being done anyway.

 TL>> Not really...all the moderator has to do is confirm that he/she
 TL>> wants to use a third party updater.  If they can't/won't do that,
 TL>> then it would appear to me that either they're not active, or that
 TL>> the third party update isn't what it appears to be.

 RW>> Wrong again.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 TL> Tell you what Roy...I run the echolist, and there's a requirement
 TL> that the moderator confirm with me(read that he/she sends me a
 TL> message) that he/she wants to/is using a third party to do updates.

That's odd, I updated the echo and got a confirmation from the robot,
just a month ago.

 TL> So...with no confirmation from the moderator, the third party update
 TL> gets put on hold.

I already told you how I got around that.  :o)



.... Honk if you like obscene gestures...
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: **  Moderator - RTKBA ** (1:10/22)

.