> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> That post read like a rookie's.
>
> Why not address your question politely to the person you know will fix
> it and sign off, also politely?
Woa, someone got out of bed on the wrong side today!
For the record, I think Thomas has done a splendid job, and I was not
blaming him in any way for what might have been a random occurrence. I
made an observation and asked if anyone knew what might be wrong.
I apologize if anyone chose to be offended by my choice of words,
which were no more colourful than many a poster on this list. A simple
"My digest came through just fine" or "Yea, I noticed the same thing"
would have sufficed.
Don't make assumptions. Don't take things personally. Don't lecture if
you can't answer a question.
Today's digest appears to be back to normal. Did any of you fine
ladies and gentlemen notice any strangeness, not to be attributed to
anyone in particular, in yesterday's digest? (Boring and insipid, but
perhaps more to Chris's liking. :-)
:::: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the
big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for
example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage
increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula
that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different
cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal
accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be
-- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any
sense to you? -- George W. Bush ::::
:::: Jan Steinman http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|