So then Kent Lufkin is all like, >For whatever reason though, lurkers take but don't give anything back >in return.
Wow. I was amazed when I read this a day ago and, after time to reflect on it, I'm still amazed. This is the first time I've ever felt dissed for just sitting back and keeping my mouth shut. >But I'm beginning to wonder about all the wonderful information and >advice we've been posting. It bothers me to think we've been >innocently sharing it with others who contribute nothing back to the >group in return. If it bothers you to think that lurkers are getting something for nothing, then take the longer view. If they do end up "sneaking away" with "ill-gotten" wisdom, then there's a chance they'll repay it down the road. If they're booted because they haven't contributed (yet), then the list has lost any chance of seeing that. In financial terms, by excluding lurkers we're guaranteeing zero return on investment. (I think a financial analogy is appropriate because the whole notion of rejecting lurkers feels like bureaucratic bean-counting anyway.) My own philosophy on posting is that I'd love to post "thanks" or "me too!" or "you go boy!" to every other message I see here. But one of the strengths of this list is its high signal-to-noise ratio. There's a lot of concise, interesting, fun, educational information. And me posting "thanks" or "me too!" would just be more noise getting in the way of the actual quality of the list. The list is better because, on the whole, I lurk. --Bob
