Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:17:15 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1802679@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <pine@cpro.co.za>
Received: from [196.37.249.19] (HELO cyberpro.co.za)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b9)
  with ESMTP id 1802508 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:53:10 -0400
Received: from pinecpro (c7-pta-216.dial-up.net) by cyberpro.co.za
	with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.3.R)
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:54:25 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <002101c270fb$ee95eba0$d8871ac4@co.za>
Reply-To: "AP Pienaar" <pine@cpro.co.za>
From: "AP Pienaar" <pine@cpro.co.za>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1801990@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Splitting up the list?
X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:58:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-Return-Path: pine@cpro.co.za
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: lml@lancaironline.net

I'm with Tom Harris on this one !!

I think those how have been a part of this list for some time now know the
bennifits it can have. Information is like a parachute, when you need it and
its not there (or hidden behind doors, so you don't find it) then most
probably you won't be around to find it later.

My vote would be to keep it as it is.

Pine Pienaar
pine@cpro.co.za
Lancair 360 #664