Dr. Williams said: >Bill and Chris and the rest of the FML: > > While I have no problems with gating to rec.pets, you will attract a >lot of attention. Will all of the people on this list be able to realize >when they are being bated by someone who really doesn't care anything about >ferrets.... > > I think I could, but I'm not sure everyone (all 600+) could, and we may >waste a lot of bandwidth condemning people for posting recipes for fried >ferrets, etc. This form of organized aggression is not uncommon on the >newgroups, and we've seen it here on the FML once of twice. (Bill - I think >this would require a lot of vigilance on your part to remove out any >objectionable posts....) We agree, which is why I want to emphasize that the suggestion is one direction _only_. From the FML _TO_ rec.pets. This means that the FML will not be subjected to such stuff. >But my question is: Is there any reason that people on the Internet in >all of it's forms and fashions (including Compuserve, AOL, etc.) can't >subscribe to the FML? I know Dr. Weiss is coming in from AOL. Normally no, the FML has a "longer reach" than a newsgroup. But, reading via news has its advantages. Including not filling your mailbox if you go on vacation for a couple of weeks. And many of the news interfaces are far better suited for this than mail is. Chris Bern said: >Hi again! >Chris brought up the idea of gating the FML to rec.pets, and Bill said >that he'd do it if people on that newsgroup wanted it. I just posted a >message on that newsgroup explaining the situation and asking for >opinions. I'll keep everyone posted on the responses. And those of you >who can get the newsgroup might want to check out the responses yourself. I just added in a reminder to rec.pets that this would be a unidirectional gateway. -- Every once in a while I write something that someone might use in a signature. So I go back and make it real spiffy. No luck. Then some guy goes and uses *that* dog. Argh! [Posted in FML issue 1074]