Jacob writes:

> Dear List
> Everyone has noticed that there is much less discussion on this
> list recently.
> The reason is that replies to individual questions go directly to
> the author of the query rather than to the list.
> (If you press the reply button for this letter your reply comes
>  directly to me rather than to EBM. Everyone gets the question
> but not to read the answers)
> The advantage is that mail boxes are not stuffed full everyday with
> discussion that is of little interest to them.


Dear Jacob:

My email agent (Microsoft Outlook) actually has TWO reply
buttons; "Reply" sends a message only to the author, while
"Reply to all" sends it to both the author and to the whole
list.

Microsoft claims this is not a design flaw but a genuine virtue;
I get to decide if my response will be of interest to everyone,
or possibly at least a few others, or only to the original author.

That puts a lot of pressure on me to actually think about what
I am saying, and to try to provide a generalizable answer that
will be useful to more than the individual questioner.


It is a skill that I learned as a college professor.  Some dumb
kid who didn't read the assignment interrupts my carefully
prepared lecture and breaks my train of thought by asking a
stupid, irrelevant and off-topic question.

I could simply answer the question, but out of respect for the
rest of the class I try to twist it into an opportunity for learning
on everyone's part.   This is a critical time, since everyone is
listening especially sharply to see if the professor has been
stumped.


In a larger perspective, you comments provide valuable clues
for solving several contemporary and universal problems,
including massive personal guilt, rising air transportation costs,
and solid-waste landfill limitations.  How can one topic have
such broad implications?

As everyone knows. it is essential in learned circles to have
a subscription to the Sunday New York Times.  Over the years
this once slim and meaty newspaper has grown to massive
proportions.  It now contains only a tiny amount of news that is
important to my specialty;  99.95% of its hundreds of pages is
mere "filler", inert ingredients that are of no interest to a
specialist like me.  I will never buy a bra at Macy's, and I have
no interest in AIDS in Africa.  Yet I am forced to download this
"spam" from my doorstep every Sunday morning.  To add
insult to injury, I have to pay for the delivery!

Often, especially during the current football season, this
two-inch high stack of worthless information sits on the
coffee table provoking massive guilt because it hasn't been
read.   By the time the last down is played in the last game
of the day, I'm much too tired to browse its prolific pages,
so it just sits and stares at me like a puppy waiting to be
petted.

By Monday, there's a new Local Daily to read first.  And if
perchance I get a few minutes during the week, I quickly
discover that last Sunday's news is already out of date; the
gunmen have been captured, the peace talks have already
broken down, and the 50% off sale is over.  And by Saturday,
the venerable old Times is ready for the trash can, as we
prepare to repeat the cycle all over again.


The current discussion on this list has inspired a revolutionary
concept that screams to be implemented.  I shall write to the
Editors, suggesting that they merely list the names and phone
numbers of their reporters, and their writing assignments for
this week.   If I detect a topic of interest to my busy mind, I
can phone the reporter and find out directly, in real time,
what he or she has discovered on subjects that truly interest me.
With the new rate plan --- 5,000 free "anytime" minutes on
my cell phone, it will be a lot cheaper than buying the entire
newspaper.  And it is so much more personal.

Getting all the questions, and selecting only the replies that
I want, will surely reduce the Times to a manageable one or
two pages.  I'll no longer feel guilty about not reading the
verbose rambling details of crimes and wars and genetic
discoveries that are of little interest.  Thousands of gallons
of jet fuel will be conserved by not shipping all those many papers
from New York to San Francisco every Saturday night.  And
the relief to our landfills would be immediate.


What I need now is the formula to calculate the relative risk
and potential effectiveness of implementing this new plan.

If anyone has done work in this area, or can direct me to recent
relevant publications, please email me -- privately, of course.

Thanks.

John Perry, PhD



   John D. Perry, PhD, MDiv, BCIA-C, FAACS
1192 Lakeville Circle * Petaluma, CA 94954 USA
   Phone: 707-789-9135  *  FAX: 707-789-9137
         Current Email: [log in to unmask]
   Email Forwarder: [log in to unmask]
         Website: http://www.InContiNet.com