Hi Folks
Good! I've got you attention. Actually, the post I sent earlier came
across as a bit more harsh than I had intended. It was meant to be
more of a moan that the berating it appears to have been taken as.
The point I was trying to put across was that for those who subscribe
only to the LS forum and accept the rules of that forum are, I
presume, interested in discussing the MOQ at a more leisurely pace
and in a more focusssed manner. One subject at a time and some
space to have a good think before replying. The (sometimes) rapid
fire responses which occur in the MD forum are not to everyones
suiting. I think it's generally asumed that when discussion is taking
place on one forum it's not also taking place at the same time on the
other. This often results in cross-postings (as opposed to cross
postings like mine) to both lists which are often rejected on the LS
forum for that reason, which in turn leads to frustration etc. Also,
useful and relevant points in the posts which appear on the MD list
are lost to those that only subscribe to LS and this dilutes the overall
discussion to a great extent.
I can understand that when you spend some considerable time
composing a post, only to have it rejected this causes frustration.
This is easily remedied in most cases - or where the posts are
completely off the mark this should be considered from the outset.
What has happened in the past in several of the monthly LS topics is
that the original subject for discussion becomes secondary and the
whole point of a focussed discussion is lost. All it takes is one small,
off topic point to be picked up on and the original impetus is lost.
This can also be extremely frustrating.
I''ve got no objections to subjects which emerge from the LS
discussion, but are not directly relevant to it, being transferred to the
MD list - this is part of the reason why the MD list is there.
> Glove:
> Hmmm... next moq_discuss will be moderated? Seems like the
> beginning of the same type of censorship that exists in the LS.
No. MD will not be moderated.
> Glove:
> Think for a moment... think about the time that goes into writing
> some of the posts here. Think about being told that all that time
> was wasted because the moderater has decided your post is
> irrelevant to the discussion. Is there a recourse? Yes! And it's
> moq_discuss.
And think about the time wasted in reading posts that are irrelevant
to the discussion. It's not just an arbitrary notion to reject some
posts and not others. Most of the rejections can be easily remedied
and reposted. Also if more care is exercised when composing
rejection is unlikely to occur anyway.
> Glove:
> And those who only subscribe to the moderated LS forum will not
> be bothered at all unless they decide to delve into the
> moq_discuss archives, right? So where's the problem?
Some of those who subscribe to both inevitably end up joining in on
both forums or transferring to MD. If the points being made are
relevant and useful they can be lost to those who don't subscribe to
both. Dilution of discussion occurs.
> David B.
> And don't you think there are genuine amd sincere MOQ
> discussions going on here? How is it disrespectful or ill-
> mannered? I'd be willing to consider any explainations that you'd
> care to offer, but at this point I'm just shocked and baffled by the
> idea that anyone has been offended by our tangential posts.
There have been a great number of excellent discussions on both
forums. Until recently there has been little overlap during the
discussion but some continuation on MD when a new LS subject
appears.
The disrespect is for those who only subscribe to LS who lose
valuable information and the chance to respond to relevant and
helpful points in understanding the MOQ. Not everyone has the same
grasp as those who've been involved for some time. Personally I think
there is an obligation to provide those who expect a focussed
discussion with all the information possible. That's just my view but
the whole point of MOQ.ORG is that it is a group effort with those
that have a deeper understanding helping those that don't. Diluting
the quality and scope of one forum for the sake of immediacy seems,
to me, to be unfair.
> David B.
> And while I have your attention, I should ask where you've been.
> Haven't seen you post anything in quite a while. I hope everthing is
> ok with you personally.
No major problems. I've been taking the Quality argument to
academia recently (Open University in the UK) and starting to get
favourable results. Getting first-hand experience of how the academic
mind and process works should provide valuable knowledge for later.
Progress is slow though as there is a lot of inertia to overcome. This
doesn't always leave much time for other things - but the activity is
only temporary and normal service will be resumed shortly.
I'll get around to some of the other points in another post but it's late
now and I need some sleep.
Horse
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
