Re: a humbling point
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu)
Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:11:07 -0500 (EST)
> bean" tradition, a single, unadorned, uneditorial fact: In the last five
> days we've had over a dozen subscribers leave the list, even some who have
> been longtime subscribers. I will leave the analysis to minds that are
> more analytical than mine, but it's a trend that makes me feel regretful.
This post is a reply to Tim OConnor's last post (quoted in part above).
What I have to say isn't especially concerned with JDS. It's about the
group and what it means that people are signing-off/expressing discontent
about the meandering nature of our discussions. If you have no interest
in this kind of stuff, please delete now (I won't be the slightest bit
offended!)
What does it mean that subscribers, some of them long-time, have signed
off this week? Has the list activity over the past week been particularly
difficult in some way? Overburdened with non-Salinger discussion? Is
this terrible? Is it unusual? How does it compare to subscribers'
experiences on other mailing lists? I've been on and off various lists
and usenet groups for about five years now (which I mention not so much in
the way of calling rank as in the way of offering an informed opinion),
and I've never been involved with a discussion group of any persuasion
that was especially focused. There were/are always people who objected
(usually loudly) to the digressive nature of the discussion, and they
often left/leave soon afterwards. Does that mean the group is failing?
I suspect that in order to keep a newsgroup entirely on track, youd need a
base of subscribers with similar if not nearly identical backgrounds. The
Bfish list connects people from radically different backgrounds (some of
us don't even have computers!). I don't see how we can or should discuss
exclusively Salinger. As I said somewhere else, dialectic is good. When
a thread becomes interesting to only one person, it usually (almost
always, no?) dies. If two people are carrying on in a manner that
benefits or interests only the two of them, dont the usually go off-list
with the discussion? I think mailing lists regulate themselves as much as
they need to.
Appropriate use of subject/header lines is arguably a good way of allowing
those subscribers who want only specifically Salinger stuff to pick
through posts to a group. But there are problems with that: often, when
you're replying to somebody, you want a) the reply to be public and b) the
person to whom you're replying to read the reply. Consequently,
preserving the initial subject line is desirable. There are ways around
this, but are any of them universally practical?
Aren't all posts in a discussion group related by necessity? Is there any
getting around that? Is it not somehow undesirable to silence speaking in
certain places?
Did those who left this week give reasons? I have myself signed-off this
list in the past (although I usually just set my subscription to "no
mail"), but always for reasons independent of the conduct of the list
itself.
just some thoughts.
clinamen
-------------------------------------------
mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu