Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli Gai (racheli![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:14:10 -0800 (PST) |
That's my feeling, too -- that a discussion is very different from
reading stuff
in the archives. Thanks for articulating this! Racheli. On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Sharon Villines wrote:
Let's not rehash it again.One of the problems with mixing old and new members on the same list is that the old members are tired of topics that are vital to the new members. Searching the archives for messages takes away from the feeling of conversation and currency that question and answer has. It's more like doing research.
- Melanie's link doesn'yt work, was Re: How is "cheap" green?, (continued)
- Melanie's link doesn'yt work, was Re: How is "cheap" green? Mabel Liang, January 11 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? Tim Mensch, January 11 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Racheli Gai, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Sharon Villines, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Racheli Gai, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Tim Mensch, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Ed and/or Kathryn Belzer, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? - A correction. Racheli Gai, January 12 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.