RE: on-topic vs. off-topic -Reply

["Spell, Bill" <bills@deq.state.la.us>]

Joyce,

Does this mean folks can't still voice their opinion if they *think* it's 
off-topic?  No, I don't think so, and if it gets too far out of line, I'll 
bet that opinion gets voiced loud and clear.  What's relevant to one person 
will not necessarily be so to another sitting in the next office.  We have 
to allow for this (IMHO).  And as someone pointed out, when we see a topic 
repeated, there is the "delete" key.

It's good to see your "voice" again.  It's been a long time since we were on 
program together.

CULater......

Bill
bills@deq.state.la.us
 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: on-topic vs. off-topic -Reply
Date: Friday, August 16, 1996 10:49AM


I agree.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov

*** Reply to note of 08/16/96 07:50
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: on-topic vs. off-topic -Reply
I hope the possibility of being "off-topic" will not deter the
sharing of "hot" information.  When we hear of a newsworthy event
that might have some relation to radiation or related nuclear or
medical issues (e.g., major power outages), I think it is reasonable
that we seek information from fellow Radsafers who may be closer to
the situation or have relevant specialized technical knowledge or
access to same.  This is especially true because of the garbled
accounts that often clog the media.  One doesn't necessarily know
where to look for the expert information immediately.
Once it is clear that the issues raised are marginal or unrelated to
radiation issues, the thread becomes off-topic and should gracefully
move elsewhere (with a "forwarding address" for those who remain
interested(?)).
P.S.  I think this opinion is relevant, even though not directly
radiation-related, because it relates to how we conduct this forum.

A personal opinion from J P Davis
joyced@dnfsb.gov