dual list discussion

j e10 Dec 2001, 00:53original

Hello everyone I'm a long time lurker but looking to post more often. I'm for one list but would prefer it Wolfe only. Pullman and Crowley may be fine writers, worthy of some of the fine-toothedness I've seen demonstrated here, but I'd prefer a Wolfe-dedicated discussion. Ranjit, is it possible to have a Wolfe list and a more open, general discussion list? I don't know how the financial side of whorl hosting works or what options you have but it seems to me you've enabled the formation of a community and it would be interesting to see the scope of exchange broadened. Anyone else feel similarly? As for a handle I'm picking one that's seems both whorlly and close to my own name - Eule.

William Ansley10 Dec 2001, 04:36original

↳ follows, by subject match j e

I think we should have one list, or two. <g> I think the Urth and Whorl lists should be combined into a single list, but I would like to see a second list for discussion of authors of interest to this group, other than Wolfe. (They could be called the Urth and Earth lists.) If this second list is deemed inappropriate or in infeasible, then I think we should just have one list.

William Ansley

Spectacled Bear10 Dec 2001, 10:27original

↳ follows, by subject match William Ansley

4 quoted lines

At 04:36 2001-12-10, William Ansley wrote: I think we should have one list, or two. <g> I think the Urth and Whorl lists should be combined into a single list, but I would like to see a second list for discussion of authors of interest to this group, other than Wolfe. (They could be called the Urth and Earth lists.)

"Now that's clever." - Wallace, in "The Wrong Trousers". Spectacled Bear, who thought of the same lists but would never have come up with such a good name.

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.