RE: NANFA-L-- RE: New nanfa list <No Fish Content In This Message>


Subject: RE: NANFA-L-- RE: New nanfa list
From: Bob Sinclair (rjs-in-silcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 10:46:19 CDT


Ranger Bob:

Got it. No arguments from me. I have no trouble seeing both sides
of this little contretemps. Having no control over, or responsibility
for, the NANFA list (nos NANFA-L), I simply was expressing my view
that a different approach to the few "miscreants" might have been
preferable ... in the interest of maintaing peace, tranquility ... and
broader participation on the list.

Perhaps I should apologize for troubling those who do not agree.
I apologize for bothering whomever was bothered by my thoughts.

Bob

  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org
Bob Culler
  Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 7:16 AM
  To: nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org
  Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- RE: New nanfa list <No Fish Content In This
Message>

  Well said, Todd. (this is Mrs. Ranger Bob)
  I'm not the member in this household, but I usually get to the email first
and read them.
  I like the list much better now.

  I was itching to reply to Bob Sinclair yesterday but didn't want to
continue the ruckus.
  He wrote: 1) It is my impression that-in-least some formerly active
contributors
  to the list felt they were harshly treated because they posted something
  off topic; and
  I don't think the problem was that those particular people posted
"something off topic". It was because a large percentage of what they
posted was off topic. It wasn't an occasional thing but happened every
week. oops. preaching to the choir.

  Sorry you can't make it for Bob's Fish Camp 2 this weekend. Although,
we've had downpours the last two days. We're expecting Casper, his boy
Coby, and Chip.

  At 07:17 AM 8/31/04 -0400, you wrote:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bob Sinclair" <rjs-in-silcom.com>
> I conclude there is a connection between the new "rules & regulations"
> and the dramatic reduction in volume. Perhaps I'm wrong...but I don't
> think so.
>

    I don't think so either... And I don't necessarily think that's a bad
thing
    (nor do a greater _majority_ of current members who've voiced their
praise
    OFF LIST). It's like a nice high protein diet without all the simple
carbs.
    Just might seem empty for a bit because we're used to so much volume,
all
    that mid-day and late night snacking we were doing :)

    This is what the BOD intended to acheive... And with the exception of
    yesterday, that's what we've been getting.

    Thanks
    Todd

    /-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
    / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
    / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about
NANFA,
    / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
    / consistent with the guidelines as per
    / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe,
    / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
    / archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.

  Betsy

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe,
/ unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
/ archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.



: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 12:24:25 CDT