In a message dated 98-02-04 13:34:58 EST, dvictor at u.washington.edu writes:

<< I vote to keep the it Reply-to-sender. >>

I'm with Dan Victor, the *Benevolent Tweetator* :-)) -----
I vote to keep the 'new' Reply-to-sender default. Afterall, ridiculously
simple user friendly AOL-email provides *in addition* to 'Reply-to-sender', a
simple 'Reply-to-all' item per item default option as well which means simply
that you can just delete either the message originator or the Tweeters address
depending on how (publicly or privately) you wish to respond. Wham bam
thankyou, simple as pie, and the subscribed originator won't get a duplicate
if the reply is addressed to Tweeters. Also in this way, you don't ever have
to go to the trouble to type (or copy/paste) the individuals email address if
you are wishing to reply privately rather than defaulting to the whole list.
Either way, you still have to think about what you're doing just like everyone
else. So, personally it doesn't much matter one way or the other, in which
case I'm 'neutral', but if nudged in any direction, I'll side with the
*Benevolent Tweetator* :-))

Flexibility and adapting to change even if it is for the better overall seems
like such an impossible concept for so many which I actually find rather
amusing if not verging on dyslexia :-). I guess I'll just never understand
why since it's this very philospophy to which I have to adapt every day in
order to exist, and of course I make plenty of mistakes too. But then my
mindset and lifestyle is so alien to most everyone else who lead 'normal'
lives which are more rooted in stable regimes thus maintaining a more-or-less
comfortable level of security, that such a life as mine living on the brink
from minute to minute is totally incomprehensible and unacceptable. So here I
be flexible and will flow with the tide of the masses.

Richard Rowlett (Pagodroma at aol.com)
47.56N, 122.13W
(Seattle/Bellevue, WA USA)