response 75 of 92:

Nov 13 13:16 UTC 1996

Re #69: What I said about Richard's participation style in this
conference isn't much different from what a number of other
people have said before. Maybe what was different was what I
said my response is: That I tend not to read him much, and that
I don't argue with him because it's not worthwhile.

response 77 of 92:

Nov 13 18:32 UTC 1996

Re #74: RRO was written by a majojr in the Corps of Engineers (see Item 137
for details).

response 79 of 92:

Nov 14 07:58 UTC 1996

part of conferencing ethics .. teh item topic ... is having s little
bit of fun with typos ... what irritates me is when an author with
a funny typo goes back and edits the response days later to correct
the typo. 

response 81 of 92:

Nov 14 23:12 UTC 1996

Um...can people edit responses days later?  News to me.

response 83 of 92:

Nov 15 05:15 UTC 1996

I consider it vaguely mean to make fun of people's typos.  Not "part of
conferencing ethics".  (Though I sometimes do it, even though I know better.)

response 85 of 92:

Nov 15 08:23 UTC 1996

rarely, Vrarely would i seem to disagree with mdw whether it's picospan
or unix. however, re #79-84 i kinda would like to know how the following:
  
---------clip----------- from item #76----------
#221 PETE(pfv) on Wed Sep 18 01:08:17 1996:
 
        The Borg do not even bother with Policy or Board conferences with
        anything like regularity anymore..
 
        I'd suggest you act w/o M-net (aka Arbornet) - they are currently
        so fubar that they may soon have no office in addition to a slump
        in patronship..
#222 Rob Henderson(robh) on Wed Sep 18 01:19:57 1996:
 Ok, we'll have a meeting to decide how Grex can help M-Net, only
 we won't invite anyone from M-Net...  ???
 
 <robh is very confused now>
 
 Ah well, it'll be good to spend an entire afternoon watching football.
 I haven't done that in years.  >8)
#223 TS Taylor(tsty) on Thu Sep 19 02:06:41 1996:
 can i wath too? <g>
#224 Daniel Gryniewicz(dang) on Thu Sep 19 14:13:36 1996:
 I'm confused.  This was started in june, and still hasn't happened?  What
 stopped it?  It seems like a good idea.
  
------clip------ 
  
expecially, #222 & #223

response 87 of 92:

Nov 15 13:04 UTC 1996

If tsty is suggesting that I edited response 222 from that item,
no, I didn't.  I confess to making too many typoes (typos?) but
I remember entering that response, and I sure didn't go back and
edit it at the time.

response 89 of 92:

Nov 15 18:46 UTC 1996

  I had to stare at this for a bit, but I believe I understand what TS was
trying to illustrate in #85.  He's suggesting that RobH, in #222, typed
"wathing," and that TS, in #223, was poking fun of the typo.  Then somebody
edited #222 to fix RobH's typo, making TS's #223 look kind of goofy.  Could
be, or it could be that TS misread #222, and that there was never a typo in
it to begin with.  I tend to believe the latter, because I have a hard time
believing someone would spend the time change things, but you never know.
 
  Also, I think TS wasn't suggesting Rane's response #77 was edited, but
the typo, and TS's subsequent response to it, reminded him of this
tangential "conferencing ethics" issue.
 
  TS, I'm sure Marcus meant there's no Picospan command to edit a response.
It's somewhat obvious that responses can be edited using Unix commands, if
one has write access to the conference directories, as most staffers do.

response 91 of 92:

Nov 17 18:49 UTC 1996

Respond #77 was not edited, although a clarification was posted in #80.