Hi Hans,
No offense taken. When you put 260 people in a group, there are that many reasons for
them being in
the group. Some like the messages handled the way you described (see your posting
below) and some
like to read ALL the messages so they can learn things they hadn't realized they might
need know.
Undoubtedly, there are dozens of other reasons in between.
I do believe that although a majority of the group's letters are aimed at a specific
sender instead
of the group as a whole, the intention is for the group as a whole to receive them and
to either
supplement the ideas, point out the risks or support them.
In my opinion, together - the full group has a better chance of offering a broad based,
comprehensive perspective to one members question than one person contributing to the
answer by
replying directly and privately to the questioner. On many occasions, I read second
and third
replies with additional details supplementing an already solid answer by someone else.
If it was me asking the question, I'd want that to occur. I'd want to feel the
subtleties and have
the opportunity to challenge my understanding by asking more questions. My favorite
time for
starting a task is after I've given a lot of thought to the sequence for doing it and
have all my
tools and supplies ready to use. This free wheeling discussion group helps me to do
that.
What's the solution to the issue you raised? Each of us has to decide. For me, the
decision is
simple. I scan the topics and speed read those which interest me. It rarely takes more
than 10
seconds per message. If I don't want to reply, I delete. Within a minute or two, I've
narrowed the
postings to only those I want to write a reply. On any one evening, my VAC time (1/2
to 1 hour) is a
small portion of my total computer time on related activities. For me, that's peanuts.
The current VAC system of having what amounts to a group discussion every day with
different people
contributing to it - works for me. It's easy, it's fun and it's an opportunity for me
to learn new
things each evening with the mere expense of an hour of my time. I look forward to
that hour.
As a crusty old New Englander and Mayflower Pilgrim, I have a hot button when it comes
to wanting
unlimited access to knowledge. There have been many generations in my family where the
opportunity
for freedom of thought and unlimited access to the ideas of others was intensely
reinforced in me. I
don't want any truck with other people narrowing my options, even if done benignly in
the spirit of
trying to be helpful. I want to be my own judge of that. But, I'm glad you brought up
the topic and
asked the question. Until you did, I hadn't thought about it at all. Thanks for
prompting me to
think it through.
Bottom line for me. The more email postings the merrier. I'd rather be the one who
decides what I
want to learn than to have information withheld from me because someone thinks I might
not be
interested. Let me be the determiner of what interests me. <grin> Let me make the
choice of using my
delete button or not. (Yea! Yea!)
Let me learn at my pace, at my convenience, with my skills and with whatever ingenuity
or reading
talent I can muster up. Then, when I fail the first time, it's my own stupid fault.
But, if I should
succeed and do it right the first time, then hip hip hurray for the discussion group
and all the
benefit of whatever insight I might have gathered from it.
Terry
===============
>Hello all fellow Airstreamers. I am a very new member to this site, so
>please don't get offended by my question! I have only received e-mail
>from you for four days, but have during that period received more than
>200 e-mail. While I have learned a lot and appreciate every letter
>addressed personally to me, I do believe that a great deal of your
>letters are aimed at a specific sender instead of the group as a whole.
>I can only speak for myself, but I do think it would make my daily email
>business a little easier if everybody asked themselves whether this or
>that is of interest to the entire group or not.
>Thank you for your time.
>Hans
>
