Marc Butler <marc.butler / voyanttech.com> writes:

> You inferred in your post my motivation was personal convenience,
> while yours was philisophically grounded.  This is attacking the speaker 
> not the argument.  [...]

The motivation *is* personal convenience in that one does not wish to
receive certain threads.  There are already enough ways to accomplish
this (and I do it myself), so there is not a valid motivation.
Without a valid motivation, the suggested action is unnecessary.

This is "attacking the argument not the speaker", as you would put it.
Please leave the combat metaphor out of this discussion.  If that is
truly how you see a conversation, you will never develop your ideas
and debate is pointless.

-- 
MJR