🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12569@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>From article <1991May28.203704.5535@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert):
>> In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes:
>>>I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't.  So this brought
>>>to mind the following question:
>
>>   So did I.  But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu
>> instead.  I haven't seen any action or response though.
>
>Hey, Neil!  Give us a break, eh?  :-)   Your message came in over
>lunch break -- and it _does_ take a _little_ time to process these
>things.  (Your e-mail message arrived here at 1759 GMT, I answered it
>at 1843 GMT.)

 I guess one has to be REALLY careful about what one says.  I suppose, in
retrospect, I should have added a 'yet' to the end of my sentence on not
having seen a response.  Still, if I had added a 'yet' this would have
suggested I was complaining.  My intention was only to report an alternative
to cancelling an article that originated elsewhere.

 In terms of time, I wrote to you at 1758 GMT.  My posting was at 20:37 GMT.
I saw the first cancellation at 20:47 GMT, with a posting date of 20:43
GMT.  Other cancellations trickled through in the afternoon.

 In general, this was handled well by uwm.edu.  I am gratified that my letter
was "answered at 1843 GMT".  Unfortunately I still have not seen this answer.
If I had seen it by the time of my earlier posting, I am sure my wording
would have been different.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940