non-Kate

["Brian J Dillard" <dillardb@student.msu.edu>]

yes, R/M/G is not limited to Kate, but Kate is the primary focus, no? and when
we get ONE post of random tori shit that is longer than the next 3 days' kate
content, that is a little extreme.

this debate happens once every couple months when somebody posts something
similarly long to the recent tori discography. rather than just shut up about
it now and rehash it in 3 months, perhaps it would be possible to slightly
ammend the FAQ next month with a loose guideline as to what types of non-Kate
content are appropriate. before i get jumped on, no, i don't think it is
possible or productive to get really in-depth and try to silence possible
threads. but i don't think that a simple "excessively long posts that are of
dubious interest to a majority of subscribers are discouraged. A short post
announcing the availability of discographies, etc. is preferable." would be out
of line. Other thoughts?

two things to remember: as was said before, people who pay for mail shouldn't
be inconveneinced like this if it can be helped. Secondly, many of us receive
love-hounds as a digest, and it is impossible to skip past such posts, which is
annoying and time-consuming, even if one does not have to pay for email.

brian dillard
dillardb@student.msu.edu