Return-Path: <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1)
  with ESMTP id 727093 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:06:55 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.64; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net
Received: from [65.11.42.103] by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP
          id <20050213130610.FSIW1983.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[65.11.42.103]>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:06:10 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:07:24 -0500
Subject:  Re: new web forum  was
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message-ID: <BE34BB3C.37F%atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-727087@logan.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I have DSL, but my vote is to stay with this format for the same reasons
posted below.
Buly


On 2/13/05 7:52 AM, "jesse farr" <jesse@jessfarr.com> wrote:

> No you are not. I am on one list that has tried the forum folly. I use high
> speed and still find it just too darn much trouble to work my way through
> the many pages and constantly branching posts to still miss one or two
> things. Maybe I am just too darn old-time so as to not be able to progress
> beyond email, unless I have to. Email is actually quicker, easier and just
> better. Go try a forum and see for yourself. JMHO
> jofarr
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie England"
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>> 
>> Am I the only one with these problems?