Dear Sharon & Ed- I'm sorry if my first message came across as 'snotty'. Myself and others have tried, in a very nice manner in the past, to convey the message that many of us have no clue as to what these mysterious subject lines mean. That didn't seem to work. I'm glad I'm finally getting some response. I receive between 80-100 messages a day! I don't want to miss a message that may pertain to a lost relative anymore than you do. But to be forced to read messages with virtually no info in the subject line gets to be a drag. So I agree that it is always a good rule of thumb to treat others as you would wish to be treated... and I think that should include the fact that most people would prefer a real subject in spot where it was meant to be. Thanks for the attention to this. I'm not a mean guy, just busy!!! Shawn >>>Dear LCFavor1@aol.com - > I know one thing you're doing wrong... putting 'WHITE-D Digest V00 >#174' as your subject heading. Are there more than two people out there >>>that know what this means? > >>>Sharon, > Yes, it is true that we know you are replying to White Digest Volume >#00 issue #174. BUT then we have to refer back to that Issue # to find out >what the "Subject" really is. Make it simple; please. Indicate the subject >in the subject line. >>> Ed > >Ed, > I do understand that, & in a perfect world everybody would add a snip of >what they are replying to in their response :) I however took exception to >the snotty response to that poor person (1st message copied to this email) >who was looking for a little help. I think it is always a good rule of thumb >to treat others as you would wish to be treated. > > > >Sincerely, >Sharon Lantzy Wygant > >SURNAMES: Anderson, Como, Hasselor, Heintz, Kingston, Lamer (Leamer, >Lehmer), Lantzy (Lenzi), Lydick (Leidig), McAnulty, McCullough, >McLane (McLain,McLean, McLene), O'Cain, Patton, Robertson/Robinson, Shankle, >Simpson, Sitter, Steen, Stuchell, Thompson (Thomson), White, >Wygant.