Hello Lindsey

 

I think there have been so many exchanges that we may be losing sight of the main point here.  I also enjoy reading the odd quip in response to a query, and I certainly would hope people still feel free (as they have for over ten years) to post new threads about any relevant topic they like.   All it is, is that a few people complained recently about some messages posted to GEM, and so I suggested we continue using the following guidelines:

 

 

The GEM list is great for discussions, and also great for asking a large number of people for specific information.

+ If the original message is just a request for a snippet of information, reply to the person making the request.

They could post a summary to the list, so saving everyone else who is interested from having to collate all the info for themselves (and a discussion might follow) or forward direct to the two or three people who asked for it. 

+ If you want to know about it too, email the person who made the request.

+ If you are making a point in an ongoing discussion, post to the whole list.

 

 

Please note the last point about discussions - it is OK to post to the whole list during a discussion (like this). 

 

The above is just a summary of the way the GEM list has been used for over ten years.  From last year onwards (I don’t remember this issue arising much before that) there have been a few reminders (by me and others) of what had been the policy.  

 

A few people have argued that the list should be set so that by default (i.e. without having to think about it) all replies go to the whole list.   On other lists this has caused some embarrassing moments (some funny, some just … embarrassing) when people think they are replying to the sender, and their message goes to the list.  

And of course on GEM as it now, nothing stops you emailing the whole list at any point.   So all I am suggesting is that we leave things as they are, and continue to enjoy the list as have done for so long.  

 

I am still not clear what the problem is with the above guidelines.   Could someone email a few specific examples

(a) from the GEM list where discussions have been inhibited as a result of this - I realise this may be difficult, in that spotting something that didn’t happen is not always easy, so alternatively:

(b) from another list where having replies to specific requests for information has resulted in a useful discussion or where following the above guidelines would have meant a loss of useful communication?

 

Of course I am not saying that this has never happened - just that the benefits of the above system so far seem to have far outweighed the odd potential missed insight, for the majority of the list.     

 

 

Martin

GEM list owner

 

 

 

 

Dear Gems,   I absolutely agree with Richard Ellam's balanced response to the somewhat fraught debate about 'Fake blood and full boxes'. As a freelancer working as a sole trader the GEM list has proved to be both informative and entertaining - I feel connected to others in the network, free to ask and answer queries or calls for information. Not all postings are deeply intellectual but hey, life can be like that and it is what the delete button is for.   I am now concerned that GEM members will feel apprehensive about posting a wide range of questions fearing they are not 'the right sort of question' - I sincerely hope that will not be the case! I quite like the odd human quip whilst slaving away in my lofty office. I also like to see the collated responses to questions on request if it is a subject I am interested in.   Regards,   Lindsey   Lindsey Kennedy Portfolio Freelance Education Consultant   58 Albion Street, Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham B1 3EA   Tel: +44 (0) 7768 132 280 Web: www.lindseykennedy.com Twitter: @Twitknitting