I agree with John Bryant. Turning off the group default reply weakens
the lists ability to grow. The value of this listserv as a forum for
debate is clearly proved by the flurry of recent activity. Miscues may
happen, but this is not a good enough reason for deactivating the
group default reply. Lets keep this forum alive and growing.

Greg Hacksley


On 22/03/07, John Bryant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm all in favor of democracy, but having an election to determine
> whether a listserv should be primarily a means of responding to an
> individual not the group is self-defeating.  All listservs, when they
> get going, have little glitches such as we experienced last fall.  They
> are not a reason, though, to change the nature of the listserv.  In
> time, members will be more careful and the listserv will grow.  But if
> you turn off the group default reply, you will essentially weaken the
> lists ability to grow, which is a crucial concern at this moment.
>
> The way to make a list grow is for people to use it the way it is
> intended to be used: which is everyone automatically talks to everyone
> (and if they want they can reply to individuals only).  By inverting
> that default, you simply turn it into individual emails.
>
> You can have a vote on this, but if the vote goes against the group
> discussion default, then I would say you don't have a listserv anymore.
>
> yrs,
> John
>
> ___________
> John Bryant, English Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549
> >>> Barbara Bordalejo <[log in to unmask]> 03/22/07 12:12 PM >>>
> Dear John,
>
> I agree with you in part and would prefer to keep the settings as
> they were. However, my impression (and it is just an impression) is
> that most people in the list have a preference for the new settings.
> What I propose then, is that those who have an opinion on this matter
> send a public message to the list stating their position (even those
> of you who already have sent me a private message). We could count
> votes the last day of March and see what the majority prefers. How
> does this proposal sound?
>
> BB
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2007, at 15:52, John Bryant wrote:
>
> > Dear Barabara,
> >
> > This seems to defeat the purpose of a list, which is to make it
> > easy as
> > possible to communicate with the entire group.  While some will
> > accidentally do the private message thing, that occurrence is rare and
> > endurable, and I think we should not change the regular list approach
> > merely to preclude the possibility of accidents.
> >
> > John
> >
> > ___________
> > John Bryant, English Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
> > 11549
> >>>> Barbara Bordalejo <[log in to unmask]> 03/22/07 8:35 AM >>>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > You all know that there have been problems with private messages
> > accidentally sent to the list by several of us. As of today, I have
> > changed the settings so when you hit reply you will reply to sender.
> > If you want the message to go to the whole list, you will have write
> > or paste the list's address in the "To:" field.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > BB
>


-- 
Dr Gregory Hacksley
St Edmund's College,
Old Hall Green,
Ware,
Hertfordshire,
SG11 1DS
UK