Re: heavily O.T. [was Net Solutions... let it rest in peace]

Susie,

Here is a thought.

We all know we are not supposed to send those thank you's to the list. But
frequently, a mystery is left hanging regarding a particular problem and
the fix that resolved it.

How about, for those that care to, reply to the list and amend the subject
with <thanks and . . .> and then in the body of the message put a summary
of the fix along with thanks to those who helped.

I think the list Mom might let us get away with that and I know for sure I
would _love_ to see some type of follow up on some of the more . . . .
complex/vexing(?) problems that pop up here.

I know, I know. "Define complex/vexing." Hey, I didn't say it was a
*perfect* idea!

FWIW,
Fuzzy.


At 10:28 PM 5/21/01 , susie wrote:
>And speaking of thanking people privately....I was berated by someone a 
>while ago for writing my thanks to the list.  Here is my question.  If more 
>than a few people answer your question, are you then to send a thank you to 
>5-10 or more people?  Even those who didn't help yet still answered?
>That's one thought, my other thought, and an even more pertinent one is 
>this.......to me it seems that the public "thank you" actually performs a 
>service.  That being that others know the question is satisfactorily 
>answered and needn't add more.  It also serves to let those with a similar 
>question know that the answer(s) received "worked".
>Just my take.
>
>Susie
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
"Eat a live toad in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you for
the rest of the day."
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA