At 12:23 AM 3/2/00 -0500, Lee wrote: > >> >BTW, the original message I got when I first signed is now >> >consigned to a scrap heap along with the computer I was using > >> What about this? >> >> *>By sending "index scuba-l" and then "get" commands to >> *>[log in to unmask], you can get recent archives. > >This may be instructions for those who do this with some regularity, but not >for the rest of us. Send how? In the body of the post? In the subject? >Individually or all at once? Then you should address your criticism to the LISTSERV writers, to Don and Nick for including such obtuse instructions in their Scuba-L Guidelines, instead of wasting my time trying to help you on simple tasks. >This may be instructions for those who do this with some regularity, NONSENSE. How much regularity do you have to do to send a command to listserv? But if you're too damned lazy to read the information given by LISTSERV and repeated by Nick regularly, and too lazy to TRY it and see what you get, you should waste everyone's time with your invalid complain, and MY time, for not only trying to help you, but have to point out the invalid ARGUMENT you advanced. >> Lee, if you spend 1/1000 of the time you spend posting here and >> in rec.scuba.* on READING a few basic essential FACTS relating to >> your posting environment, to help solidify the factual basis of >> your recall of what others posted, it would greatly enhance the >> value and quality of your discussions. I mean this as a >> constructive comment in response to your rather callous remark >> about trashing the LISTSERV Intro you were supposed to keep, >> and then CONTINUE to ignore what's posted every other week by >> Nick -- to REMIND you (and others) what they have trashed. > >If you had read a bit closer and considered what I might have been saying, >you might have posted a bit less callously yourself. ACTION speaks louder than words. Read yourself to see your ACTION. You're just ARGUING now, when you should be TRYING to find out how to SEND a command to the LISTSERV. ;-) Lee, that's the FUNNIEST statement you've made in a LONG time ... about you not knowing how to send ANY listserv command and criticized everyone else about your inability! FUC 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 5.2. >As for reading more and posting less, I have a few comments: >1. I have worked more than 14 hours a day every day this week. You worked >. .why none. YOu mean you do your scuba postings while you "work", don't you? How do YOU know how much "work" I do, or not do? All of that is IRRELEVANT. If you don't have the time to read the Scuba-L guideline and TRY to follow a simple instruction, that you should spend the time there FIRST. The time you spend ARGUING about you own lack of time and why you don't read/use them would have already made you an EXPERT in using LISTSERV commands. You choose to remain ignorant about them. That's all. It's your business. Just don't ARGUE to justify your ignorance in the presence of very straightforward and explcit instructions: >> *>By sending "index scuba-l" and then "get" commands to >> *>[log in to unmask], you can get recent archives >My time is limited and I spend it reading only what I have a >need for or an interest in. You have need to be a Responsible Discussant. If you don't bother to follow a simple instruction to find out what others said, what hope is there for you to actually RE-READ anything to correct your faulty recollection?? > > > You apparently ignored them, and what was posted under >> >> >To get you started, here is the result of "help info": > >I did not ignore it. I specifically said I did not see the command >structure and would look more closely later. The statement I made is still >at the top of this post. And you spend this post ARGUING and giving EXCUSES on why your callous action is justified. >> My reply to your question started with your comment on this: >> >> >>> A single LISTSERV command using GET could retrieve anything >> >>> within the past 11 months. > >This does not answer the question of how to issue that command. For one who has been in Scuba-L as long as you have been (since 1994), that statement of yours says it ALL about YOU. There is no point in my ARGUING with you on it. (snip of remainder of Lee's patented "invalid argument" for ARGUEMNT sake) >> If you don't have the time to read two lines, or half a page >> to find out how to do things, you're not going to know, Lee. > >> LIST readers are not BORN with that knowledge. But one must >> have to invest and expend a teeny tiny bit of effort to acquire >> the know how. > >Thanks for the confirmation that what I specifically said I was going to do >is, in fact, what I should do. If you haven't done it in 6 YEARS and still don't know how to send a command to LISTSERV, you have ZERO, ZILCH credibility in your two lines above. It's a very poor excuse at that. -- Bob.