From: Jill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Social List and GML
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:22:44 -0400
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can
tell you that I won't be persuaded, just based on how the action was taken.
It was done without any discussion or a chance for input from veteran list
members by someone who is relatively new to the list and to gerbils, IIRC.
-->So let me get all this straight... It seems that several people are upset
simply because someone got tired of all the bickering on the GML and decided
to try to do something about it by starting another list EXPERIMENTALLY.
Would someone please show me where it is stated that everything has to be
discussed here first? Deb is just trying to find a solution to a problem,
and those of us that support the SocialGML agree with her, at least mostly.
No one HAS to subscribe to it.<--
As for myself, I would easily classify myself into the "pure expert"
category- not based on what I KNOW already, but where my interests lie and
what I hope to learn. I have no social interest at all in this list. I read
the first post of almost every topic and decide from there what I will
follow. If it is social in nature I delete any responses to it, if it's
about genetics I delete it because I know I can't help :-) I'm not saying
this system would work for anyone but myself, it's just my approach.
-->Your lack of social interest is fine. Since you just want information
about gerbils, that's what we're trying to give you and others like you.
Having the GML and the SocialGML means less social clutter for the GML.
That, in turn, means less hassle for people such as yourself that merely
wish to gather information about gerbils. Those of us that wish to get
information AND be totally social and goof around can do so without getting
on anyone's nerves and getting swamped with reprimands. Quite frankly, when
I subscribed to the GML, I did NOT expect to receive mostly reprimands for
the occasional slip-up or an attempt at breaking up the monotony.<--
I also agree that this is not a new problem- in the 2 1/2 years I have been
reading and filtering messages, nothing of late has required a change in my
reading tactics, or time spent dealing with GML emails and from that I
conclude that the list itself hasn't changed all that much.
Isn't it possible, also, that the list itself isn't deserving of so much
blame for the change in frequency of the "experts"? True, maybe some people
are unhappy enough with some things to sign of, but I don't think that
accounts for everything. Things happen in lives, situations change, jobs
change- we have no way of knowing or accounting for any of these factors
related to the people who no longer post much. I know when I start vet
school, I anticipate having near zero time to surf the web and belong to
email lists as I do now.
-->I'm sure that the factors you've listed probably have something to do
with the declining expert population, but you can't take the blame
completely away from the list (which I see you haven't). Again, the social
list is a simple experiment to try to reduce stress factors and create less
hassle for people seeking only knowledge. Perhaps if the GML environment
were less anti-social lately, a separate list would not have come about.<--
That's all for this go around,
Jill
-->Ditto. I actually posted something...yay..!
-Kris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
