I agree totally with Kris here. I feel he replied in a civil manner. I'm
afraid of this discussion, is going to turn into an argument. Thank you to
everyone how has kept it a discussion and hasn't jumped on someone's back
because you disagree.
Happy Wheeks and Squeeks,
-Jenni(the human behind The JenniFUR Clan)
-the Gerbils(my little handfulls)
-and Weeble(the female super cavy)
visit our web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/jennthompson
*Need web site or HTML help?
*Need a place to post your pictures?
---> E-mail me!
Save the GGMLEs! (the Great GML Experts)
>From: Yellow Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Yellow Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Social List and GML
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:19:22 CDT
>
>From: Julian and Jackie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Julian and Jackie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Social List and GML
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:15:45 +0100
>
>As the Social list is intended to change the nature of this group by
>encouraging certain messages to be sent elsewhere, it impacts on this
>group. In the past we have discussed changes before implementing them.
>And it has worked quite well. Even if that was not the case it would
>have been a simple curtesy to discuss it here first.
>
>-->I can understand discussing a change to the list itself, such as
>outlawing certain types of posts, changing the charter, etc. What I do NOT
>understand is how anyone expects us to discuss something like this in a
>civil manner when discussions usually get blown out of proportion and great
>ideas get shoved aside. As for courtesy, I believe that providing a
>social
>list provides just that, especially for those that do not wish to be bogged
>down by social posts.<--
>
>If such a discussion had resulted in a concessus that it was worth an
>experiment the experiment would have my full support.
>
>-->How can that happen if not everyone bothers to post a response? You'd
>only be getting a small percentage of votes out of the entire GML
>subscriber
>population. Why can you not support an experiment such as the SocialGML?
>Give it a chance before hacking away at it.<--
>
>I disagree in principle to unilateral experiments. Just because it is an
>experiment does not make it justifiable not to consult the other users
>of this list.
>
>-->I'd call this discussion consultation of a sort.<--
>
>It has been suggested that the experiment run for six months before it
>is evaluated. What I want to know is how can it be evaluated unless
>everyone sees the messages from both groups? If they only subscribe to
>one group how will they know what is going on elsewhere?
>
>-->The evaluation is simple. If a person wishes only to get information,
>subscribe only to the GML. If a person wants both information and social
>content, along with an easy way to divide time between the two, subscribe
>to
>both. And I suppose that if someone wants ONLY social content, he or she
>can subscribe only to the SocialGML. If the social content of the GML
>reverts back to an acceptable level, or at least to a level that everyone
>can agree upon, while the SocialGML flourishes as well, I'd say it's a
>success.<--
>
>If we are expected to subscribe to both groups, as Bill suggested, then
>what is the point?
>
>-->I don't think anyone is EXPECTED to subscribe to both. It's a totally
>voluntary thing. That fact has been stated repeatedly. The SocialGML also
>has an up-to-date archive, so you can always see for yourself how it's
>going
>without actually subscribing.<--
>
>I am not against a second list in principle, as is shown by some of my
>other messages, but I firmly believe there are better ways of doing it
>than has been chosen in this case. I strongly argue for this experiment
>to be cancelled until we have had a proper discussion of how to use a
>second list. Then give it a try.
>
>-->Julian, if it weren't for the second list, I'd never have gotten to post
>some stories about my animals. That second list gives me an outlet for
>that
>sort of thing. If I were to post such a thing on this list, I'd get
>reprimanded right and left. I don't want that, and I'm sure no one else
>wants an inbox full of nothing but complaints. How can you or anyone else
>call the second list a bad thing if it allows people to get things like
>that
>out of their system and entertain other people?<--
>
>--
>Julian
>
>************************************************************************
>* Jackie and Julian *
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
>* National Gerbil Society *
>* http://www.gerbils.co.uk/ *
>************************************************************************
>
>-Kris
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
