On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:02:40 -0500, Mike C. wrote:
>I for one would be against this, but only because this would create more
>problems. ..."hey take that to the tech list bud!" If there were two
>lists then even more stuff would be considered off topic for this one.
I'd also hate to see those DML members who have performance solely or at
the top of their
interest list no longer contribute to the DML. By scattering into small,
separate,
special interest lists, the chances of being a strong voice that has the
potential
to be heard and taken seriously by the aftermarket and OEM powers-to-be are
greatly
diminished.
One suggestion might be to start the Subject line with DML[tech]: member
subject
and Re: DML[tech]: member subject. This way, members can use their email
software
and sort by subject so that all the tech material can be grouped together.
The Tech parameters might include any
information/discussions/questions/sources about
PERFORMANCE (aftermarket/factory/grassroot) IMPROVEMENTS could include
anything
that can be in the engine bay/suspensions/drivetrain.
Bottom line, though, is that it has to fall within the philosophy on what
the DML
was intended to be.
I, personally, will remain a DMLer because of all the fine people (with
different
and similar interests than my own) that I have met and hope to meet in the
future.
If I have to find another list for performance information then so be it
(although
it would be a shame).
Bob
Burlington, Ontario
'97 CC Sport, 5.2L, 3.55, auto., 4x2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:25 EDT