Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: "Nicola Browne" <nicky.matthews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
"R. L." <see-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:83dgj19nv7rihg3q13jkc0l9fj93t6qisj@xxxxxxx
> > Or if you're not into killfiling, I could add spoiler space at the top of
> such a post. I'd supposed that putting a lot of tech terms in the first
> paragraph, after <begin process musing>, would be enough of a signal for
> most people to delete the post without reading further.
>
>
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not criticising you - and I
don't not want to read such discussions I was dramatising my reaction
to a particular type of approach as a contribution, however unwelcome,
to the discussion.I am quite intrigued by your approach it
is different from mine. I apologise if I caused offence.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: R . L .
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- References:
- 'mode' for a scene?
- From: R . L .
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: Nicola Browne
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: Lucy Kemnitzer
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: Nicola Browne
- Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- From: R . L .
- 'mode' for a scene?
- Prev by Date: Re: What's taters?
- Next by Date: Re: Continental vs British toilets
- Previous by thread: Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- Next by thread: Re: 'mode' for a scene?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
