Re:Cotyledon (Adromischus?)

Bette, Of course, but I think you are the only one to have got it. I will
keep my  elliptical remarks to myself in future
Edward

----- Original Message -----
From: Bette <bett@mindbomb.net>
To: <ekf@lineone.net>
Sent: 18 May 2000 21:20
Subject: Re: Re:Cotyledon (Adromischus?)


> Edward, I believe you and Deborah are on the same side.    I think she was
> being ironic.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Faridany <ekf@lineone.net>
> To: Deborah.Lindsay@kaiseral.com <Deborah.Lindsay@kaiseral.com>
> Cc: medit-plants@ucdavis.edu <medit-plants@ucdavis.edu>
> Date: 18 May 2000 21:04
> Subject: Re:Cotyledon (Adromischus?)
>
>
> >Deborah, I thought your suggestion in today's mail as to criteria to use
so
> >as  to exclude certain  classes of people  from our group, beginning with
> >economic standing,  potentially very sound.  What had you mind as an
> >economic cut off point? May we hear more?I would go for around $20000
> before
> >tax. Keep out some of the riff-raff would'nt it? Also I suggest people
who
> >cannot spell 'lavander' should be excluded, plus those who profess to
> having
> >a medit. style garden but do not grow any quercus ilex. Salvia growers
are
> a
> >bit borderline too.
> >No doubt we can elicit other ways to improve the tone of our group from
the
> >membership. One way and another we have got to stop the rot and thank-you
> >for bringing up this important point.
> >Edward FARIDANY
> >Sussex
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Deborah Lindsay <Deborah.Lindsay@kaiseral.com>
> >To: <medit-plants@ucdavis.edu>
> >Sent: 18 May 2000 16:04
> >Subject: Re:Cotyledon (Adromischus?)
> >
> >
> >> Charles wrote:
> >>
> >>  "I would like to say two things.
> >>
> >>      First, there is quite a bit of difference in the work and
> >> time involved in attaching a picture and putting one on a web page.
> >> People that are more knowledgeable than I can make the difference
> >> smaller, I'm sure, but attachments will always be easier. Certain
> >> maximum standards could be used. Mine are 4" x 6" at 72 dpi. Perhaps
> >> someone could suggest other standards that would still convey the
> >> needed information at less memory cost."
> >>
> >> Someone suggested that a member who has pictures in jpg form to share
or
> >ask
> >> questions about could tell us that via the list and *offer* to send
them
> >to
> >> those interested, via private e-mail. I think this is a great idea and
a
> >> wonderful compromise.
> >>
> >>      "Second, not everyone has a web page. So this group is being
> >> excluded from showing their pictures or asking their pictorial
> >> questions. I think it is a shame that they are being excluded because
> >> someone's computer hasn't been upgraded or because they have a poor
> >> ISP."
> >>
> >> No one would be excluded from showing your pictures if we used the
above
> >> process. Those whose systems are harmed by big files (as graphics files
> >always
> >> are) are excluded from any participation in the list until they fix the
> >problem.
> >> Charles, not everyone can afford to upgrade their computers,
> >> and not everyone has a choice of what isp they can use or afford. Shall
> we
> >> exclude people based on their economic standing?
> >>
> >> Deborah Lindsay
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index