Brenden, for some kids it is too young by age, for others it is attention span. mine is more the latter... dan
--- Brenden Portolese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Too young? > > Ive been searching the Net for one of those "chest-pack" baby carriers I > can > clip some tippet and floatant to. > > Never too young... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: D KOLTON [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Lurkers > > > I AM A LURKER... > > I get out fishing about 2-3 times a year between owning a business, home > remodeling, wife and two young boys. I WISH I could give more, but i just > can't. I truly enjoy much of what I read, and i guess it gives me a > rather > vicarious life of fishing. I sure hope to start getting the kids out > soon, > but they are just too young now... > > I would hate to think I would be excluded from being a part of a list > because a few people want it more exclusive. i personally would rather > you > all invite me and others like me to join you, fish with you, get as good > as > some of you, and then we could post as well... > > my 2 cents worth... > > dan > > --- Kent Lufkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just found that the WAFF list now boasts over 250 email > > subscribers. I also learned that only about 50 subscribers post to > > the list on a regular basis. That means that roughly 80% of WAFF > > subscribers are so-called 'lurkers' - people who receive the list's > > email posts but who do not respond with posts of their own. > > > > In fairness, I'm sure many lurkers are novice fishers, fishers who > > don't feel that they have anything worth contributing, or are > > otherwise just plain shy. A number of lurkers are probably > > now-and-then fishers or are just too darned busy to post even an > > occasional email. > > > > However, I also know for a fact that a number of lurkers are fly shop > > employees or owners. They subscribe to the list, gathering valuable > > fishing information which they then feed to their customers as a > > 'value-added' perk. > > > > For whatever reason though, lurkers take but don't give anything back > > in return. > > > > > > I personally enjoy reading the posts to the list - even the > > off-subject ones, the newbie questions that we've all heard before > > (and asked ourselves once upon a time), the subjects I'm not > > interested in, and even the occasional spats between subscribers. I > > read 'em all, delete most, and respond to a few. > > > > Bottom line is that I've learned quite a bit more about flyfishing > > than I would have without subscribing to the list. > > > > 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. Not to mention the trove of past posts available in > > the searchable archives. > > > > > > Thanks to technology and the subscribers who've generously shared > > their skills, we now have the capability of 'unsubscribing' lurkers > > from the list. > > > > We can also password-protect the archives on our web site, making > > them available only to active subscribers. > > > > The questions though, is should we? > > > > > > The list is only as good as the information that subscribers post to > > it. If lurkers don't contribute to the group, their absence won't be > > felt. > > > > On the other hand, restricting the list smacks to me as just another > > form of elitism, the same kind of smug, 'I'm-better-than-you-are' > > attitude that others think characterize we flyfishers in general. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Kent Lufkin > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Find a job, post your resume. > http://careers.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
