Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mach mach@****.caltech.edu
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:33:36 -0800
Heeello....

I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
so I can verify the list got them.

Now I know what Paul feels like.

Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:03:05 -0800 (PST) <==That's TEN days ago!
From: Mach <mach@****.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: shadowtk@*********.org
To: shadowtk@*********.org
Subject: Re: Hiring


*****PRIVATE: Mephistocoles
>>>>>[Is that name an intentional misprint? You may not get a good
reaction regardless, calling yourself by that name, especially by anyone
who's ever heard of _Faust_, but I am interested.

<<SNIP>>

My specialties are in security systems and personal protection.]<<<<<
-- Fang <23:32:43/02-18-60 PST>

______________

?
--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 2
From: Mach mach@****.caltech.edu
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:39:31 -0800
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Mach wrote:

> I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
> deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
> so I can verify the list got them.
>
> Now I know what Paul feels like.
>
> Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

Hmmm. I just got a similar email finally bounced back from an entirely
separate mailing list. So, maybe the problem is on my end, but if so, I
still don't understand it.
Message no. 3
From: Adam J adamj@*********.html.com
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 02:53:41 -0700
At 01:33 2/28/99 -0800, Mach wrote:

>I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
>deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
>so I can verify the list got them.
>
>Now I know what Paul feels like.
>
>Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

ShadowRN did this a few days back, too. Whole rash of posts from about a
week back. I'm not sure if Mark was paying attention or even knows about
it.. :-)

There's still some bugs in the new list software, but since the last
version was released about 6 weeks ago, I would hope that a new release is
forthcoming..

-Adam J
< http://shadowrun.html.com/tss / adamj@*********.html.com / ICQ# 2350330 >
Message no. 4
From: Mark A. Imbriaco mark.imbriaco@*****.com
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:14:25 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Adam J wrote:

> ShadowRN did this a few days back, too. Whole rash of posts from about a
> week back. I'm not sure if Mark was paying attention or even knows about
> it.. :-)

Uhhh .. yeah, ummm. Well, I uhh ..
Okay, okay, I didn't notice. I'll look into it, though.

-Mark
Message no. 5
From: Mach mach@****.caltech.edu
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:33:36 -0800
Heeello....

I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
so I can verify the list got them.

Now I know what Paul feels like.

Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:03:05 -0800 (PST) <==That's TEN days ago!
From: Mach <mach@****.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: shadowtk@*********.org
To: shadowtk@*********.org
Subject: Re: Hiring


*****PRIVATE: Mephistocoles
>>>>>[Is that name an intentional misprint? You may not get a good
reaction regardless, calling yourself by that name, especially by anyone
who's ever heard of _Faust_, but I am interested.

<<SNIP>>

My specialties are in security systems and personal protection.]<<<<<
-- Fang <23:32:43/02-18-60 PST>

______________

?
--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 6
From: Mach mach@****.caltech.edu
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:39:31 -0800
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Mach wrote:

> I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
> deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
> so I can verify the list got them.
>
> Now I know what Paul feels like.
>
> Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

Hmmm. I just got a similar email finally bounced back from an entirely
separate mailing list. So, maybe the problem is on my end, but if so, I
still don't understand it.
Message no. 7
From: Adam J adamj@*********.html.com
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 02:53:41 -0700
At 01:33 2/28/99 -0800, Mach wrote:

>I would all like you to note the date on that last post. I though I had
>deleted it, as I do with all my posts that I have sent back to me just
>so I can verify the list got them.
>
>Now I know what Paul feels like.
>
>Mark I.: Uh, care to try to explain/get to the root of this?

ShadowRN did this a few days back, too. Whole rash of posts from about a
week back. I'm not sure if Mark was paying attention or even knows about
it.. :-)

There's still some bugs in the new list software, but since the last
version was released about 6 weeks ago, I would hope that a new release is
forthcoming..

-Adam J
< http://shadowrun.html.com/tss / adamj@*********.html.com / ICQ# 2350330 >
Message no. 8
From: Mark A. Imbriaco mark.imbriaco@*****.com
Subject: Let's do the Time Warp again!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:14:25 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Adam J wrote:

> ShadowRN did this a few days back, too. Whole rash of posts from about a
> week back. I'm not sure if Mark was paying attention or even knows about
> it.. :-)

Uhhh .. yeah, ummm. Well, I uhh ..
Okay, okay, I didn't notice. I'll look into it, though.

-Mark

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Let's do the Time Warp again!, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!