Good points, Bill, and I agree with you to a certain extent. I think too many people who come here take all this chatter too seriously. I know when I returned a few weeks ago after a 3-year break, I was taking things too seriously.
The people who knowingly subscribe to OT have a choice to either lurk, participate, or cancel. The ones who have left OT made that choice for some reason(s) you believe are related to the quality-quantity mix. Maybe you are right and maybe not, but it is what it is. We all have options and the opportunity to make choices, including the choice to discourage behavior by totally and completely ignoring it. Unfortunately there are always enough people around, it would seem, who are compelled to participate by their personalities. Does the name John Walker ring a bell? HALinNY -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 14:34 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: ProFox List Statistics for June, 2006 > And that, I believe, is why Ed agreed to filter the OT messages, so > that we could censor ourselves. > > I respect your opinion, Bill, but I don't see the problem here. To > me, the Ots are a quick way to get some serious surfing done by other > people and reap the benefits without much effort. It is also somewhat > entertaining to watch and occasionally participate in the OT melange > when time permits or when I need to vent my frustration. The > "attackers" as you call them, are simply bogeyman targets for usually > harmless exchanges. This is a difficult subject, Hal, because (a) I cherish free speech and do not wish to hinder it in any way, and (b) personally, I like Michael, even though we see things very differently. But it's not the difference in opinion that I protest. The problems I see are that (a) we needed the OT separation in the first place, and (b) OT attendance very much appears to have dwindled. I don't know what the numbers are, but I recall Ed saying there were some 500+ folks on the OT list. Judging from the level of diversity we're actually seeing, I'm beginning to wonder if more than 100 are still around. Why did they go? I think both Ed and Ted have pointed at one contributing factor: quantity adversely affects quality. We all know about the media 'rags', and I'm sure some of us will occasionally look at them to see what they are up to, but do we subscribe or connect an online feed to them - and then read everything they have to say? I don't think so. I can't read Ed's mind, but I do know he's gone really out of his way to create and nurture ProFox. If I were him, I'd be a little disappointed to see the list degenerate from a culturally diverse, world-wide audience to a magnet for chatterboxes in need of sounding boards. Let them say all they want - but put it into a few posts a month. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Ed has said many times that the community must regulate itself, and it is in that spirit that I'm offering to say that we have a problem with the quality of the list being under attack by volume, be it intentional or otherwise. Bill > HALinNY [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
