On 24 Aug 2000, at 1:00, List-Managers-Digest wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:48:41 -0400
> From: "Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: comments?
>
> On 23 Aug 2000, at 14:31, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > I disagree here. Personal, one-on-one communication is done more
> > efficiently via the telephone. The big strengths of email are:
> [...]
>
> Actually, looking at email from a long term perspective, email has always
> been, and I suspect always will be, probably the best means of one-on-one
> communication. If anything, I think the telephone will start to go by
> the wayside as things continue --- Truly symmetric telephone calls are
> rare --- as a rule, one party was looking for the other, and that other
> may or may not wish to deal with the first party *right*then* [but you
> hardly have a choice if they manage to catch you, do you?]. Requires
> that the called-party be findable. That the parties want to talk at the
> same time [which isn't such a slam-dunk when one is in Hawaii and the
> other in Berlin].
>
> Some of the *biggest* wins of email, as sort of the killer-app of the
> early ARPAnet, was [and for *one*on*one* communication, and, IMO, still
> is and will be]:
>
> 1) it was fast. Just a minute or so from anywhere to anywhere else --
> not so for mailing lists, where this one (list-mgrs), for example, seems
> to have a one or two hour delay built in, and most incur some sort of
> delay --- but one-on-one is, generally, seconds-in-transit
>
> 2) it eliminated time sync/zone considerations --- folks in europe
> could send email to us and we'd get it when we got in in the morning...
> we would send replies and they'd get it at the start of [their] next day,
> 3am or so our time, etc]. for the first time, the night-crew [the guys
> who'd come in at 4PM and work 'till sunup] could actually constructively
> exchange info with the day-folk...
>
> 3) it eliminated the problem of figuring out where someone was.
> Generally, telephones only work if you know the number where the person
> happens to be at that moment [not actually true now, with folks able to
> have national-roaming cell phones, but few ordinary folk have such toys].
> But for email, a person could be on a trip or at a conference or even on
> vacation, and get your message and reply to it with little or no delay...
> no need for the "while you were out" message to sit on your desk for 14
> days...
>
> 4) It allowed reasonable time management... Telephones are incredibly
> intrusive. I'm pretty disciplined and if I'm busy I just let the thing
> ring, but that drives my wife *insane*... as a rule, if you call me I
> was almost certainly doing something else and whether I am happy talking
> to you or not, the fact is that you interrupted me... with email, it
> just waits until I feel like messing with it and if I'm busy and can't
> get to 'routine correspondence' [much less 'random hobby-mailing-list'
> traffic, which is ghettoed off into a low-priority folder], that's fine
> and I get to it at *my* pleasure.
>
>
>
> On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure I like mailing lists much...
> I've been on a lot of them, from the very start [human-nets and such] and
> I have to say that I think that the usenet news machinery is a *FAR*
> better medium for many-to-many discussion forums. Email is probably OK
> for announcements, but I really prefer newsgroups for 'discussions' and
> if every 'discussion' mailing list I'm on went away and became a
> newsgroup, I'd think that'd be just fine and thing's be better for it...
> Offhand, I can't think of a persuasively good advantage of mailing lists
> over newsgroups... [authentication and access and such is a problem with
> usenet, not with newsgroups machinery... there's no real problem setting
> up 'private' newsgroups [just as you can have 'private' mailing lists]..
> you can even robomoderate to only allow 'registered' folk to post to the
> newsgroup [much like the way mailing lists only allow subscribed-folk to
> submit]]...
>
>
> [ps, as a side comment on what I think is the ultimate damnation of
> mailing lists as an effective medium, I see that the report chuq pointed
> us at recommended that ALL mailing lists have 'digest' available and that
> that be the *default*... sheesh... As I've said here, the continued
> existence (much less popularity) of digests are just an apologetic for
> bad mail-handling clients (showing how unsuitable 'email' _is_ for
> handling discussion forums) --- or if you will, the clearest indictment
> that mailing lists are mostly losers as the medium for a discussion
> forum. Digests should have died 20 years ago when their obvious
> shortcomings were apparent...
>
> /Bernie\
> - --
> Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
> --> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Dear Bernie,
I agree with you on your first four points, in your letter, above, but I
must wholeheartedly disagree on the last two, those being the
paragraph about newsgroups, and your post script.
Newsgroups are superior, in some aspects, to mailing lists, for
discussion purposes. But out of the two dozen or so mailing lists
that I'm on, the first dozen are announcement only, and only about
six of the rest, I'd judge, would be suitable for conversion to
newsgroups.
My biggest argument against newsgroups for every discussion is
the waste of it. Every newsgroup that is carried on an international
basis must be carried on every news server that is hosting these
groups. (Admittedly, there are all sorts of ways to set up local-
distribution groups only, but this defeats the purpose of having a
widely-based group.) That adds up to a lot of storage used for just
the benefit of a very few.
Newsgroups have their place, and there are some that I rely on
heavily for technical support forums, and many others that I cruise
sheerly for the pleasure. But mailing lists, I find, can be every bit
as good for free-form discussion, and are less likely to wander off
topic.
But, as far as digest forms are concerned, I use them extensively,
and while I don't advocate them as default (except perhaps in
certain, very-high-traffic lists), they are certainly very useful. I get
this "List Managers" list in digest form, and it's much easier and
more convienient to read it all in one packet, on a daily basis.
Admittedly, there are problems with HTML-formatted email in
digest form, and with attachments, but by and large, I don't care for
those in my regular email, anyway, so I'm not complaining on
those issues. :)
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Albert
==============================================================
Anthony J. Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster
Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
Attention: the next meeting of the Time Travellers' Society
will be last Tuesday.
