Dear Friends,
I've shared some off-list correspondence about
this with GK. I'm interested in what he does, and --
to be honest -- I am also skeptical. At the same
time, I have myself several times asked the group
about these issues as I did when Matt posted, and
I am open to the kind of trusting conversation
that John suggests.
There are a few pending notes still here from
earlier threads, but I want to set them aside for a
while to see what emerges.
I appreciate Rosan's view on this. As one of the
key focal points in such threads in the past, I
admit to an amount of discomfort as someone
whose on-list interaction may be discussed and
analyzed. At the same time, my view is that I
am concerned with list quality, and I welcome
a conversation that may improve it.
During the on-line conference, Kari-Hans raised
issues that led me to suggest he might develop
such a thread. We talked about it again last weekend.
So it seems to me that this is a timely moment for
these kinds of considerations.
I value GK's input at the same time that I am
unsure that he has a specific method that works
better than other methods. At the same time, I am
eager to learn and to develop, and I am interested
in GK's group and their results. I appreciate Ranjan's
comments and John's.
For my part, without committing anyone else, I'd
welcome a conversation on these issues.
I'll return at some point to share my feelings on
this. I write to respond to GK, Ranjan, and John,
thanking them for their generosity in opening
this thread.
Warm wishes,
Ken Friedman
|