On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:59:59 -0500, James Mahaffy wrote:
[...]
JM>While I quit subscribing to the evolution list several years ago, I
>took a look at the archives recently and noticed an interesting
>discussion about why the thinkers had left the list. Apparently the
>discussion was stimulated by one person suggesting (in a private post -
>that was made public) that a particular person had driven away the
>"thinkers" when he joined the list.
>
>...The main reason I left that list and now read the ASA list only
>via the archives on the web was because of noise on the lists. Noise of
>course means that lot of the posts are of little interest to you. Early
>on I had found the evolution list very stimulating. It was then a
>private list of Phil Johnson's with a bunch of ID thinkers who were
>offering new and somewhat different ways of looking at creation.
>
>.... But as time went on I thought the list
>became dominated by some TEers and most Iders left soon after it went
>public.
Hmmmm. Sounds like the complete opposite of what Glenn was trying to
make out! (BTW where is Glenn?) And it backs up what I said about a
major cause of "powerful thinkers" leaving was the List going public
soon after I joined.
JM>2. While the above is true, I think both lists would do better if the
>people who post a lot could cut down their posts by perhaps a half to a
>third. At least one of the busy folks is someone who I respect for an
>excellent mind and good ideas but when you see a post from this
>individual almost every day you know many of his ideas and they can
>become noise. Now if some frequent posters have little to say - then
>their posts are noisy. So frequent posters, we need you but if you can
>just think twice before you post on whether we have heard your idea on
>that topic or if it is really of general interest and not an "I agree
>too" - the list would be stronger in my opinion.
I agree with this. How about we *all*:
1. Limit ourselves to no more than *two* posts a day? (This is not hypocritical.
- I would *love* to have an exuse not to have to respond to the many posts
that are usually addressed to me);
2. How about those who post many brief posts a session (no names no pack
drill!) post less frequent but longer, more informative posts?
3. How about there be more posting of informational articles and less debate?
If there is to be debate let there be one response and then shift the debate
off-List direct between those interested?
4. How about the posts be addressed to the Reflector rather than to indiduals
(sort of like addressing the Chair at a meeting to cut down too-personal
arguments)?
5. And how about not putting unnecessary cc.'s to others who are already on the
list? In 4 years I have never received a cc. sent without also receiving the
main copy sent to the List.
If there is anyone who agrees with me on these points could you indicate
it publicly so we could try to make it a voluntary code of conduct for the
List? I hope Terry Gray has a filter on his name and reads this for
comment as to its feasibility.
[...]
JM>I don't know if this study helps but I thought it interesting. Now if
>anyone has ideas on how we can improve the lists reputations as sources
>of good and thoughtful ideas, I think their impact could be increased.
>
>Now I know I am slow but working up this post took a LOT of time - which
>may be part of the problem with making a list better. How would these
>lists be if we shared ideas we had worked on for at least several days?
>But then maybe a list of its nature just does not provide the forum for
>good thinking to develop and we have to go to the Christian Journals.
I thank Jim for the time and trouble he put into this.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------