At 09:34 15/02/02 +0000, Ray Thomas wrote:
>Good to see some words of common sense about the management of this list!
I'm flattered - but I have to say that if 'statements of the apparent
obvious' such as I made generate 'praise', then I have to ask myself
whether I'm subscribed to a 'worthwhile' list, at least from my viewpoint!
>John, Radstats needs you, and people like you, to help Radstats adjust to
>the world of electronic communication and the culture that electronic
>communication has created.
One of the problems would appear to be, as I've said before (and got into
trouble because of my choice of colloquial vocabulary!), that Radstats (in
some guise) wishes to accommodate those (and we still haven't a clue how
many - surely very few?) who are hardly IN 'the world of electronic
communication'.
I personally continue to find it almost impossible to believe that a
significant number of those people subscribed to this list (or even of
those who would like to be subscribed to this list, and have some means of
internet access) are spending any significant amount of time/money in
downloading Radstats e-mails. What I CAN believe that many of the list
members do not have the time to read all of the discussions, particularly
those involve many and/or 'longer' messages. However, we are talking about
people who also don't have time to read every single article in a newspaper
or journal, but one assumes (after all, they are all 'intelligent' people)
that they nevertheless read the newspapers and journal _selectively_,
rather than abandoning them completely (or suggesting that they should be
torn up and sold in bits) 'because they contain lots of long articles'!
>Might you be interested in becoming a Radstats activist in some
>way? Like taking on the responsibility of list owner?
Good grief - I don't really see myself as an 'activist' of any sort, so I
don't know about that, although (as you are aware!) I am not beyond
chirping up and offering my personal views on these matters!
Where I am a little lost (and maybe I'm not the only one?) is in working
out what really is the perceived 'purpose' and raison d'être of this
list. Maybe there IS a place for one list solely broadcasting
announcements and 'admin', and another for 'serious discussions'. There
will obviously be a range of views on this, but the sort of discussions
that can be dealt with in a small number of short messages are not
generally the sort of discussions which interest me; as someone observed
before, it is a slightly odd situation when people choose to join a
'discussion list' and then complain that there is too much, or too
detailed, discussion! Of course there are many people who are too busy to
spend any time participating in (or even following) electronic discussions
- but the most sensible course for them to take is pretty obvious!
Whatever the perceived purpose of the list, I imagine that it is not really
living up to those expectations - since, like so many other
organisation-based lists (and, indeed, 'organisations' themselves), the
bulk of 'discussion' seems to be about the organisation/list itself (this
message being a prize culprit!), and not about the subject area that the
organisation/list is meant to be about. It's a long time since I've
noticed much (if any) serious discussion here about those matters which are
meant to interest Radstats and its list/members.
Kind Regards
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|
