P3D Re: Mailing lists

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:07:29 -0700
>From: Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: Mailing lists

>The problem is that every thread is a separate topic, which will
>potentially be of interest to some, and not to others.  Should we start a
>separate list for everything?  

No. (Unless a large number of people really want to do it.)

>I happen not to be going NSA this year, so I
>have no interest whatsoever in the recent postings about air fares to Green
>Bay, etc.  I am also not currently interested in lenticular prints.  So
>does that make everyone who posts on these subjects inconsiderate?

No - there has been no large body of requests to take these things off P3D
and start new lists on these topics.

>The advantage of having one big list is that people who THOUGHT they were
>not interested in a given topic sometimes found that ... surprise!  They
>were!  Sometimes people gain new interests and insights.  That's the
>advantage of having one big list, instead of lots of separate lists for
>each subtopic.  Of course, no one forces you to read every posting.  But
>many is the time I stopped on the verge of deleting a message, and decided
>to read further because something caught my attention.

OK, so which topics are *you* unable to receive with the current
configuration? (And are you subscribed to all the lists?)

It still sounds like you want to force messages upon other people, who
specifically requested that they not receive them, "for their own good".

>If you're really opposed to even seeing anything outside of your own
>predefined set of interests, you probably shouldn't be on the list at all.
>There's no telling when somebody might invade your space with some new
>discovery.

If by "you" you mean me personally, I subscribe to most of the lists
(not the RBT list). If you are referring to readers in general, then I
agree - if they only want to read and discuss their specific topic of
interest, then they shouldn't have to be on "the list" (meaning P3D) at all.
But why eradicate those lists that they *do* want to be on?

>I DO advocate going back to a single list.  I still don't think that makes
>me inconsiderate.  I abide by the rules we've established, but I can also
>point out where and why I think they should be changed.

Fair enough. And I can point out why I think this change would not be
productive. In particular, I think it would be a lot of trouble going
through the discussion process to implement it, the benefits described
by the proponents would be miniscule, and it would introduce a lot of
problems.

John R


------------------------------