Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00694)

Replying to MK Ramadoss:

>>It's good to see some suggestions for netiquette on Theos-l from Michelle,
>>Liesel and Alan.  I would also suggest that we be more aware of what
>>we post of Theos-l, etc.
>>
>>One problem I see is the large number of daily postings by a few individuals.
>
>MKR: I think how many messages anyone posts is their business.

It certainly is their business, but it is not just *their* business.
Others who wish to take part in the life of the list are inevitably affected
by the cumulative effect of these little decisions. Connections ... unity
.. applied theosophy ...?


>If someone
>has the time and interest to write messages and post them, so much the
>better. If I have the interest and time to spend all night long and post 400
>messages, then why should I be discouraged by anyone.

If somebody sent in 400 messages overnight, it would annoy and discourage
many others. Some kind of reasonable mean has to be struck between the needs
of the list members, a bit like an orchestra where, if one section is too
loud, it spoils the overall balance of the music. At the same time, we can
accept that some can write more than others, whether for reasons of
knowledge, enthusiasm, or just plain time.


>Again if someone does
>not want to read my messages there are two options that I use (1) hit the
>delete key liberally and frequently - it kills the message instantly (2) use
>filters - a filter feature can segregate messages based on one or more
>criteria and you can even set it up such that a message can be directed
>directly to "Trash" mailbox.

These things help, but don't reduce the problem to nothing.

It does not take zero time to deal with a message, even with the most
fleeting glance, and the effect builds up when there are many. We don't all
have filters in our e-mail programs, either. Besides, I don't *want* to
filter out anybody automatically, though once or twice over the last year
it has been tempting!


>MKR: With such a small number of subscribers and such a small number of
>active message posters, I think *any* limit on the number of messages will
>be very inappropriate and undesirable.

One of the main limits on my writing - I would like to do more - is the time
it takes to keep up with the reading.

An externally-imposed limit is, of course, rather odious and spoils the
feeling of free cooperation, but a decision by each member to keep in sync
with the needs of others is an act of consideration and can only boost
the morale of the group.


>The commercial Internet access prices are plummeting. Currently in my city
>one can get unlimited PPP access for $10.00 (ten) per month with a sign up
>fee of $10.00. Anyone spending more money should try shopping around and
>they may find a better deal they can use. Of course what anyone wants to do
>is their business. I just wanted to share the current market pricing
>information.

That's fine. Time is the other facet of the overall cost, of course.
Plus the data storage space if you want to keep your own archives.


>>Also there is the common practice to quote from three or four previous
>>messages and then
>>add one or two lines of comment.
>
>MKR: If someone wants to unsubscibe because of the above, then my comment
>above on delete/filter may help.

I'd rather that *writers* used their delete key to prune quotes and
multiple quotes to the minimum needed to remind others what the thread is
about, or to make it clear exactly what is being answered. It's what I try
to do.


>MKR: I would like to hear from lurkers. Lurkers should be welcomed and made
>feel comfortable that they will not be either challenged or ridiculed for
>anything they post. Only then will the lurkers come out.

I agree very much.

There are many people who feel diffident or don't think they know much but
who have an interesting slant on things, or experiences that would interest
others.

BE ENCOURAGED, YOU LURKERS!


Murray
Member TI & TS in NZ