Now that it's cleared up,

Hope you stick around Eduardo–your posts have always brought a unique and interesting perspective to the discussion around here and I for one would be very sad to see that go away,

= feisal




Eduardo Navas wrote:

> Hello Ivan,
>
> Response follows your message below:
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
> To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>;
> "Francis
> Hwang" <francis@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: no problems logging on just the five
> monthproblem of…
>
>
> > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
> > >
> >
> > > But the problem that I want to address now is that Francis used my
> e-mail
> > > address to answer me publicly, on the list. As I already stated
> below,
> I
> > > find this insulting, and demand an explanation behind his logic of
> using
> my
> > > e-mail address to respond to me publicly. As the date on the
> e-mail
> below
> > > shows, I have waited a few days to hear from Francis, or other
> staff at
> > > Rhizome, but the response has been to ignore my reply to his
> offensive
> > > gesture.
> > >
> > > I demand an explanation,
> >
> > I thought Francis already gave what seemed like a perfectly innocent
> > explanation: he logged on as you to see if he could replicate the
> problem.
> > While he was logged on, forgetting that he was logged on as you, he
> sent
> you
> > an email about the problem. OK, a bit daft, but innocent. Unless
> there is
> > more to it, e.g. that there is a plot to insult you? Why would that
> be.
> > Cheers,
> > Ivan
> ———————-
> my response:
>
> I received an e-mail from T.Whid explaining the same thing.
>
> For some reason I never received the e-mail which Francis sent to the
> list
> directly (like all the other ones, had been). I went to the rhizome
> website
> and looked on the thread as it appears on the posting board, and sure
> enough
> there was Francis's e-mail response where he apologized.
>
> So, if I had received such e-mail in my box a few days ago, I never
> would
> have sent a follow-up message asking for an explanation. I think it
> is
> understandable that I asked for him to explain his behavior,
> especially
> since I was not aware of his apology.
>
> In the past, I have refrained from sending responses to both the list
> and
> the person whose post I may be responding to, and have decided to send
> messages only to the list, but I can see why it is a good idea to send
> the
> message to both addresses, even if this means that the person who is
> receiving the response will receive an e-mail twice.
>
> It will save the frustration of pulling out extra e-mails to ask why
> one is
> being ignored, when this is not the case.
>
> Glad that is cleared up.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>