Deleted? By whom?

[From Dag Forssell (2017 01.04 09:25 PST)]

Rick, upon reflection, I think this is really bad news.

  1. You don’t reflect for a moment on what you delete. In this case

csgarchive@pctresources.com The address itself told you that
you were deleting all mail to the CSGnet archive.

  1. You live only in the moment. This was the second time you deleted this
    address.

  2. I think your action is unethical. The fact that you can does not
    make it ethical to delete addresses willy-nilly from CSGnet. I have
    considered actions to clean up the CSGnet address list in the past, but
    always envisioned sending a test message to anyone I considered suspect;
    people who set “no mail” long ago and such, to see which
    addresses would bounce and which were still active. I never got around to
    do so.

I think you should feel obligated to send an email to each address you
consider deleting, before you do. Anything less is not ethical on
your part.

Not so best, Dag

···

At 04:02 PM 12/30/2016, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken
(2016.12.30.1600)]

[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I’m afraid. I went to check to see who was on the list and
saw that about 4 of the addresses were marked as “bounced”. So
I assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted them. Sorry about
that. Glad you’re back on.�

Best�

Rick

�

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive
address:

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600
To:

csgarchive@pctresources.com

Your address
(
csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive
non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:

mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

“excessive non-delivery reports” is nonsense. I get plenty
of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download
to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk…

Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one,
but did not delete myself.)� (Rick deleted me the previous time
this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to

www.iapct.org
and followed my own instructions.

What did the archive miss?

The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.

I will respond to that one momentarily.

BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet
archive.

Dag

Richard S. Marken�

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long
way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others
is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Rick Marken (2017.01.04.1320)]

···

Dag Forssell (2017 01.04 09:25 PST) –

DF: Rick, upon reflection, I think this is really bad news.

RM: Well, I guess this rules out my future run for US president; unintended email mistakes trumping (so to speak) intended racism, misogyny and divisiveness.

DF: 1) You don’t reflect for a moment on what you delete. In this case

csgarchive@pctresources.com The address itself told you that
you were deleting all mail to the CSGnet archive.

RM: I was controlling for clearing the list of email addresses that had bounced, under the assumption (after a moments refection) that these notifications are there to show that the associated addresses are obsolete. I assumed incorrectly.

DF: 2) You live only in the moment. This was the second time you deleted this
address.

RM: I would say that my controlling had unintended side effects (both times, I guess) so I am sorry.

DF: 3) I think your action is unethical. The fact that you can does not
make it ethical to delete addresses willy-nilly from CSGnet.

RM: It would have been unethical if I had purposefully deleted an email address that I knew to be active. But my purpose was to clean up the list by deleting email address that were no longer active (as indicated by the “bounced” message). Apparently an email address that is labeled “bounced” is not necessarily inactive. So deleting your email address was an accidental side effect of my controlling for eliminating bounced addresses. It’s understandable that this would get you upset. My action was, perhaps, careless but certainly not unethical.

DF: I have
considered actions to clean up the CSGnet address list in the past, but
always envisioned sending a test message to anyone I considered suspect;
people who set “no mail” long ago and such, to see which
addresses would bounce and which were still active. I never got around to
do so.

RM: Yes, I should have done that.

DF: I think you should feel obligated to send an email to each address you
consider deleting, before you do. Anything less is not ethical on
your part.

RM: That seems a tad strong but, if I ever do this again in the future (and I almost certainly won’t) I will send out an email before deleting an address.

DF: Not so best, Dag

RM: I understand how you feel. You have put a lot of hard work and care into archiving CSGNet and I screwed you up (created a large and, apparently, enduring, error signal). The fact that it was done unintentionally probably doesn’t help much. So I will not let it happen again. Keep up the good work.

Best

Rick

At 04:02 PM 12/30/2016, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken
(2016.12.30.1600)]

[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I’m afraid. I went to check to see who was on the list and
saw that about 4 of the addresses were marked as “bounced”. So
I assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted them. Sorry about
that. Glad you’re back on.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive
address:

========================

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600

To:

csgarchive@pctresources.com

Your address
(
csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive

non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:

mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

“excessive non-delivery reports” is nonsense. I get plenty
of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download
to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk…

Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one,
but did not delete myself.)Â (Rick deleted me the previous time
this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to

www.iapct.org
and followed my own instructions.

What did the archive miss?

The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.

I will respond to that one momentarily.

BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet
archive.

Dag

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long
way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others
is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[Chad Green (2017.01.05.1510 EDT)]

Dag, this looks like a mistake I would have made myself. I’d recommend refraining from blaming individuals for errors unless a standard procedure were not followed
to begin with. In this case it appears that there was none.

Best,

Chad

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.01.04.1320)]

Dag Forssell (2017 01.04 09:25 PST) –

DF: Rick, upon reflection, I think this is really bad news.

RM: Well, I guess this rules out my future run for US president; unintended email mistakes trumping (so to speak) intended racism, misogyny and divisiveness.

DF: 1) You don’t reflect for a moment on what you delete. In this case
csgarchive@pctresources.com The address itself told you that you were deleting all mail to the CSGnet archive.

RM: I was controlling for clearing the list of email addresses that had bounced, under the assumption (after a moments refection) that these notifications are there to show that the associated addresses are obsolete. I assumed incorrectly.

DF: 2) You live only in the moment. This was the second time you deleted this address.

RM: I would say that my controlling had unintended side effects (both times, I guess) so I am sorry.

DF: 3) I think your action is unethical. The fact that you can does not make it ethical to delete addresses willy-nilly from CSGnet.

RM: It would have been unethical if I had purposefully deleted an email address that I knew to be active. But my purpose was to clean up the list by deleting email address that were no longer active (as indicated by the “bounced” message).
Apparently an email address that is labeled “bounced” is not necessarily inactive. So deleting your email address was an accidental side effect of my controlling for eliminating bounced addresses. It’s understandable that this would get you upset. My action
was, perhaps, careless but certainly not unethical.

DF: I have considered actions to clean up the CSGnet address list in the past, but always envisioned sending a test message to anyone I considered suspect; people who set “no mail” long ago and such, to see which addresses would bounce
and which were still active. I never got around to do so.

RM: Yes, I should have done that.

DF: I think you should feel obligated to send an email to each address you consider deleting, before you do. Anything less is not ethical on your part.

RM: That seems a tad strong but, if I ever do this again in the future (and I almost certainly won’t) I will send out an email before deleting an address.

DF: Not so best, Dag

RM: I understand how you feel. You have put a lot of hard work and care into archiving CSGNet and I screwed you up (created a large and, apparently, enduring, error signal). The fact that it was done unintentionally probably doesn’t help
much. So I will not let it happen again. Keep up the good work.

Best

Rick

At 04:02 PM 12/30/2016, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.30.1600)]

[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I’m afraid. I went to check to see who was on the list and saw that about 4 of the addresses were marked as “bounced”. So I assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted them. Sorry about that. Glad you’re back on.Â

BestÂ

Rick
Â

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive address:

========================

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600

To: csgarchive@pctresources.com

Your address ( csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive

non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:

mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

=========================

“excessive non-delivery reports” is nonsense. I get plenty of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk…

Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one, but did not delete myself.)Â (Rick deleted me the previous time this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to
www.iapct.org
and followed my own instructions.

What did the archive miss?

The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.

I will respond to that one momentarily.

BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet archive.

Dag

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Dag Forssell (2017.01.07.1740 PST)]

Chad, I respectfully disagree.

When you take on responsibility of acting as one of the list owners, it behoves you to know something about what you are doing.

I am pretty sure Rick would label himself as list owner challenged as he knows full well he is clueless as to what a technical term such as "bounce" might actually mean.

(A mail bounced back, likely because the receiving server was down for maintenance or such. A resend from the CSGnet list server went through. I am sure we have all seen mail bounce back, complete with information about resends.)

When you start deleting other subscribers' addresses, ignorance is not much of an excuse. You are not a list owner. If you too are ignorant, that is not an excuse for Rick to do violence to CSGnet participants.

What you call lack of a standard procedure is simply cluelessness on Rick's part, combined with lack of attention and hubris. Ignorance is no excuse when you take on responsibility.

Best, Dag

···

At 12:10 PM 1/5/2017, you wrote:

[Chad Green (2017.01.05.1510 EDT)]

Dag, this looks like a mistake I would have made myself. I’d recommend refraining from blaming individuals for errors unless a standard procedure were not followed to begin with. In this case it appears that there was none.

Best,
Chad

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Deleted? By whom?

[From Rick Marken (2017.01.04.1320)]

Dag Forssell (2017 01.04 09:25 PST) --

DF: Rick, upon reflection, I think this is really bad news.

RM: Well, I guess this rules out my future run for US president; unintended email mistakes trumping (so to speak) intended racism, misogyny and divisiveness.

DF: 1) You don't reflect for a moment on what you delete. In this case
<mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com>csgarchive@pctresources.com The address itself told you that you were deleting all mail to the CSGnet archive.

RM: I was controlling for clearing the list of email addresses that had bounced, under the assumption (after a moments refection) that these notifications are there to show that the associated addresses are obsolete. I assumed incorrectly.

DF: 2) You live only in the moment. This was the second time you deleted this address.

RM: I would say that my controlling had unintended side effects (both times, I guess) so I am sorry.

DF: 3) I think your action is unethical. The fact that you can does not make it ethical to delete addresses willy-nilly from CSGnet.

RM: It would have been unethical if I had purposefully deleted an email address that I knew to be active. But my purpose was to clean up the list by deleting email address that were no longer active (as indicated by the "bounced" message). Apparently an email address that is labeled "bounced" is not necessarily inactive. So deleting your email address was an accidental side effect of my controlling for eliminating bounced addresses. It's understandable that this would get you upset. My action was, perhaps, careless but certainly not unethical.

DF: I have considered actions to clean up the CSGnet address list in the past, but always envisioned sending a test message to anyone I considered suspect; people who set "no mail" long ago and such, to see which addresses would bounce and which were still active. I never got around to do so.

RM: Yes, I should have done that.

DF: I think you should feel obligated to send an email to each address you consider deleting, before you do. Anything less is not ethical on your part.

RM: That seems a tad strong but, if I ever do this again in the future (and I almost certainly won't) I will send out an email before deleting an address.

DF: Not so best, Dag

RM: I understand how you feel. You have put a lot of hard work and care into archiving CSGNet and I screwed you up (created a large and, apparently, enduring, error signal). The fact that it was done unintentionally probably doesn't help much. So I will not let it happen again. Keep up the good work.

Best

Rick

At 04:02 PM 12/30/2016, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.30.1600)]
[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I'm afraid. I went to check to see who was on the list and saw that about 4 of the addresses were marked as "bounced". So I assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted them. Sorry about that. Glad you're back on.Â

BestÂ

Rick
Â
I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive address:

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600
To: <mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com>csgarchive@pctresources.com
Your address (<mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com> csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list
<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive
non-delivery reports for your address.
You can subscribe again:
<mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu%3Fsubject=sub%20csgnet>mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

"excessive non-delivery reports" is nonsense. I get plenty of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk..
Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one, but did not delete myself.)Â (Rick deleted me the previous time this happened.)
I am now subscribed again. Went to <home - iapct.org and followed my own instructions.
What did the archive miss?
The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.
I will respond to that one momentarily.
BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet archive.
Dag

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

--
Richard S. Marken

"The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

[Chad Green (2017.01.09 10:35 EDT)]

Dag, I'm not here to disagree but to suggest that procedures need to be written down and followed regardless of who assumes that list owner role. Otherwise errors will simply be repeated.

For example, when my role as managing editor of an online academic journal was about to end, I wrote down all the details of the job in an SOP so that the person replacing me could follow them. Almost 20 years later I can see that those procedure are still being followed. More recently I used the same strategy as program chair of a topical interest group at AEA (www.eval.org). Previous program chairs had winged the process for proposal review, but I documented everything and handed it to the new chair without any hassles. They've been using that manual ever since.

Best,
Chad

Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575

"To the humble, courageous, 'great' ones among us who exemplify how leadership is a choice, not a position." - Stephen Covey (The 8th Habit)

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Dag Forssell [mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 8:43 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Deleted? By whom?

[From Dag Forssell (2017.01.07.1740 PST)]

Chad, I respectfully disagree.

When you take on responsibility of acting as one of the list owners, it behoves you to know something about what you are doing.

I am pretty sure Rick would label himself as list owner challenged as he knows full well he is clueless as to what a technical term such as "bounce" might actually mean.

(A mail bounced back, likely because the receiving server was down for maintenance or such. A resend from the CSGnet list server went through. I am sure we have all seen mail bounce back, complete with information about resends.)

When you start deleting other subscribers'
addresses, ignorance is not much of an excuse.
You are not a list owner. If you too are ignorant, that is not an excuse for Rick to do violence to CSGnet participants.

What you call lack of a standard procedure is simply cluelessness on Rick's part, combined with
lack of attention and hubris. Ignorance is no
excuse when you take on responsibility.

Best, Dag

DF :
When you start deleting other subscribers' addresses, ignorance is not much of an excuse.
You are not a list owner. If you too are ignorant, that is not an excuse for Rick to do violence to CSGnet participants.

HB :
Vau, vau what we have here. Rick making troubles again ?Oh no it's "deja vu". And the cause is his "accidental mistake". Poor Ricky ... His hands are not under control of his brains and they are making stupid mistakes. Dirty hands... I told Rick many times that he can't control his behavior and obviously he will never beleive me. Simple PCT solution for Rick is to start controlling his perception of being a good man.

I've been pointing out that Rick is manipulative and mean person when his goals (intention, wishes, expectations) has to be carried out. We all know PCT explanation for that. But somebody having such a high gain in "protecting" himself (we have to understand that Rick is thinking that PCT is protecting theory) can be judged only as high class egoist. It's seems that it is in his nature.

The story :
Once scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was sorry but it can't help as it's in its nature to do so.

Any resemblance with Rick is pure coincidence. Well it's good that Powers ladies took him down of duty being a moderator on CSGnet. How much more damage could he make ? He wanted to delete me as well :). In this case all CSGnet would be sure today that "Behavior is Control" and that some "Controlled variable" is in environment and of course that there is some "Controlled Perceptual Variable". When I think of this possibility it makes me feel cold.

Best

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Dag Forssell [mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 2:43 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Deleted? By whom?

[From Dag Forssell (2017.01.07.1740 PST)]

Chad, I respectfully disagree.

When you take on responsibility of acting as one of the list owners, it behoves you to know something about what you are doing.

I am pretty sure Rick would label himself as list owner challenged as he knows full well he is clueless as to what a technical term such as "bounce" might actually mean.

(A mail bounced back, likely because the receiving server was down for maintenance or such. A resend from the CSGnet list server went through. I am sure we have all seen mail bounce back, complete with information about resends.)

When you start deleting other subscribers'
addresses, ignorance is not much of an excuse.
You are not a list owner. If you too are ignorant, that is not an excuse for Rick to do violence to CSGnet participants.

What you call lack of a standard procedure is simply cluelessness on Rick's part, combined with
lack of attention and hubris. Ignorance is no
excuse when you take on responsibility.

Best, Dag

At 12:10 PM 1/5/2017, you wrote:

[Chad Green (2017.01.05.1510 EDT)]

Dag, this looks like a mistake I would have made myself. I��d

recommend refraining from blaming individuals for errors unless a
standard procedure were not followed to begin with. In this case it
appears that there was none.

Best,
Chad

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Deleted? By whom?

[From Rick Marken (2017.01.04.1320)]

Dag Forssell (2017 01.04 09:25 PST) --

DF: Rick, upon reflection, I think this is really bad news.

RM: Well, I guess this rules out my future run for US president;
unintended email mistakes trumping (so to speak) intended racism,
misogyny and divisiveness.

DF: 1) You don't reflect for a moment on what you delete. In this case
<mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com>csgarchive@pctresources.com
The address itself told you that you were deleting all mail to the
CSGnet archive.

RM: I was controlling for clearing the list of email addresses that had
bounced, under the assumption (after a moments refection) that these
notifications are there to show that the associated addresses are
obsolete. I assumed incorrectly.

DF: 2) You live only in the moment. This was the second time you
deleted this address.

RM: I would say that my controlling had unintended side effects (both
times, I guess) so I am sorry.

DF: 3) I think your action is unethical. The fact that you can does
not make it ethical to delete addresses willy-nilly from CSGnet.

RM: It would have been unethical if I had
purposefully deleted an email address that I
knew to be active. But my purpose was to clean
up the list by deleting email address that were
no longer active (as indicated by the "bounced"
message). Apparently an email address that is
labeled "bounced" is not necessarily inactive.
So deleting your email address was an
accidental side effect of my controlling for
eliminating bounced addresses. It's
understandable that this would get you upset. My
action was, perhaps, careless but certainly not unethical.

DF: I have considered actions to clean up the
CSGnet address list in the past, but always
envisioned sending a test message to anyone I
considered suspect; people who set "no mail"
long ago and such, to see which addresses would
bounce and which were still active. I never got around to do so.

RM: Yes, I should have done that.

DF: I think you should feel obligated to send an
email to each address you consider deleting,
before you do. Anything less is not ethical on your part.

RM: That seems a tad strong but, if I ever do
this again in the future (and I almost
certainly won't) I will send out an email before deleting an address.

DF: Not so best, Dag

RM: I understand how you feel. You have put a
lot of hard work and care into archiving CSGNet
and I screwed you up (created a large and,
apparently, enduring, error signal). The fact
that it was done unintentionally probably
doesn't help much. So I will not let it happen again. Keep up the good work.

Best

Rick

At 04:02 PM 12/30/2016, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.30.1600)]
[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I'm afraid. I went to check to
see who was on the list and saw that about 4 of
the addresses were marked as "bounced". So I
assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted
them. Sorry about that. Glad you're back on.�

Best�

Rick
�

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive address:

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600
To: <mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com>csgarchive@pctresources.com
Your address
(<mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com>
csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list
<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu,
likely due to excessive
non-delivery reports for your address.
You can subscribe again:
<mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu%3Fsubject=sub%20csgnet>mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

"excessive non-delivery reports" is nonsense. I
get plenty of CSGnet traffic and remove it from
my host server as I use POP download to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk..
Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list
owner? (I am one, but did not delete
myself.)� (Rick deleted me the previous time this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.iapct.org&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=GEKhOtgUygevfxqcKhC0WOuV4SE9FUk-ina_9BCj9rM&s=VT3bJ2Js6jjVEL3WfQF2fz19PM7WAyd2wMAhHvHMfC4&e=&gt;www\.iapct\.org
and followed my own instructions.
What did the archive miss?
The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.
I will respond to that one momentarily.
BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet archive.
Dag

--
Richard S. Marken�

"The childhood of the human race is far from
over. We have a long way to go before most
people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being
as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

--
Richard S. Marken

"The childhood of the human race is far from
over. We have a long way to go before most
people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being
as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive address:

···

========================

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600
To: csgarchive@pctresources.com

Your address (csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive
non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:
mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

"excessive non-delivery reports" is nonsense. I get plenty of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk..

Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one, but did not delete myself.) (Rick deleted me the previous time this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to www.iapct.org and followed my own instructions.

What did the archive miss?

The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.

I will respond to that one momentarily.

BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet archive.

Dag

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.30.1600)]

···

[From Dag Forssell (2016 15:00 PST)]

RM: It was me, I’m afraid. I went to check to see who was on the list and saw that about 4 of the addresses were marked as “bounced”. So I assumed they were obsolete addresses and deleted them. Sorry about that. Glad you’re back on.

Best

Rick

I just received the following message to the CSGnet archive address:

========================

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:58:22 -0600

To: csgarchive@pctresources.com

Your address (csgarchive@pctresources.com) has been removed from list

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu, likely due to excessive

non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:

mailto:lists@lists.illinois.edu?subject=sub%20csgnet

=========================

“excessive non-delivery reports” is nonsense. I get plenty of CSGnet traffic and remove it from my host server as I use POP download to Eudora, archiving on my hard disk…

Did Rick Marken delete me again? Some other list owner? (I am one, but did not delete myself.) (Rick deleted me the previous time this happened.)

I am now subscribed again. Went to www.iapct.org and followed my own instructions.

What did the archive miss?

The last one I received was from Warren, re Time-Stamp ID.

I will respond to that one momentarily.

BTW, Glad Rick and others have discovered the CSGnet archive.

Dag


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers