Richard Dewsbery uttered:
> Ok, let me set the record straight.
And I'll stretch it even straigher ;-).
> I'm not interested in forcing a vote on this sort of thing. Really, I
> couldn't give a damn who does it as long as someone does, and my ego is
> not so big that _I_ have to be that person.
> If someone else would rather do this, for whatever reason, that's fine
> by me. But if this is one of those up-tight lists where we all have to
> vote on what questions get asked, and how they should be worded, then
> I'm outta here now.
The reason for a vote for who would act as the connection between
GW and the list, was simply because Andy & Jervis asked us to, so they
could answer one batch at a time, instead of everyone mailing their
questions directly to them. Allen rewrote the questions we sent him
to be easy yes/no variants, since that's what they asked for.
> Excuse the rant, but it's been a difficult day - not made any easier by
> implied accusations that either I'm staging a coup or that I should shut
> up and hope someone else asks the right people the right questions.
If JJ & AC don't mind, I can't see any problem about you sending them
questions or whatever.
Hope this clears things up. I think it was a good arrangement and made
everybody happy. JJ & AC didn't have to answer the same questions over
and over, redundancy was instead removed by Allen and our sometimes
vague questions were made clear and concise by Allen (which didn't
stop the Primearchs from giving insubstantial answers now and then,
despite our efforts to prevent it :-).
Is it NOUVELLE CUISINE when 3 olives are struggling with a scallop in a
plate of SAUCE MORNAY?
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC