Sharpshooter,

Good questions, and not new. These questions have been brought up since when
BP originated.

The way I see the one-liners or off-topic community building is that we have
a steady hum that keeps the list active and interspersed we have shots of an
"on-topic" signal. The jibes and jokes and chatter build context, granted, a
flow of gibberish that some outside of the list, or more self-contained in
their lives, may find off putting. I find it cumbersome at times to wade
through -- then again, I tend to encourage it, I think for good reason...
though I am open to discussion. I've spent a good deal of time in wonder
trying to figure out how BP works. Beats me!

Activity attracts participation, it hardly matters the perceived relevance of
the activity. If I make weird faces and draw a laughing crowd then I have
done just that, made weird faces and drawn a laughing crowd. If I hold up a
brick and talk about it for twenty minutes at the same time with a passion
that exceeds all boundary... then I have done just that.

On BP the crowded room is a linear simulcast. The gal in the back corner
sipping chilled Polish vodka points out to her buddy that my pants are undone
and that what I think is a brick is actually a cobble.

The chatter is a means of validation of information... though heart work may
not be relevant to restoration, the knowledge of heart work, or unfortunate
swimming accidents, or the status of screwdrivers in Vermont, through
personal empathy keeps me aware not only of what is going on in the at-large
community, but of what is outside of the conversation that is relevent to
validating the spurts of on-topic data.

Example: the engineer that refuses to use the extra-special technological
anchoring solution because she thinks the rep is a male chauvinist... he
clumsily described his anchors one day in a drunken haze from the perspective
of the forced penetration of deep cavities.

Though we all want to be believed when we speak, the pre-ordained validity of
information in this media is subject to the personal scrutiny of each of us
that receives it. A title, degree, or badge of experience from the originator
of a message is not relevant here. There is little validation for believing
the value of what anyone says on BP without our personal comfort with and
understanding of the individual giving out the information. Without noise
among strangers we cannot build the context of the personal understanding.

When we meet, as I am aware BP meetings in real time occur frequently, we do
not remain strangers for long. There is context to our understanding and
acceptance of each other. I think this is a good thing.

Put in another way, if you (the non-descript BP subscriber who rarely laughs)
do not laugh at my jokes, if you do not put up with my insufferable
chattering, then why should I trust you with the information that I worked so
long and hard to get at personal expense?

We put up with the noise because when we get the signal it is a good one.

Yet the two, signal:noise, are symbiotic and each would lose without the
other.  We put up with the congestion of driving in Manhattan because we
anticipate the reward will be greater than the expenditure. I suppose a
contrary argument can be made in support of driving on salt flats or through
miles and miles of corn fields. The noise is a threshold toll that we pay in
order to access the signal. The signal/information is free in a monetary
sense, but not free in the expenditure of time that it takes for each of us
to sort through the flow and determine what we consider relevance. The
relevance of information is subjective and it is this subjectivity that makes
it nearly impossible for the list to operate based on an objective standard
of relevance.

My personal bias, I want to know what I learn on BP and in as haphazard and
jumbled a manner as it comes across. If I want structured programming then I
will go to school and pay for a class.

Then again, there are stated objectives to the culture and tone of the list
that a subscriber receives when they initially subscribe. How we each in turn
interpret the cultural objectives I would hope would not be a question of
stifling personality... as it is the stifling of the personal that I suspect
will stifle discussion. (Just as a fixation on spelling and grammar will
stifle contributions to the list.) We need to bring tolerance and put up with
each other, complain when we feel like complaining, and take notice when the
community, and the sharing of information enabled by the list, appears to be
faltering. We need to look out for the health of each other and, in turn, the
health of the list.

What I think is needed is a balance of the signal:noise in a manner optimal
to the aggregate group of subscribers. How can we manage to achieve an
optimal signal:noise ratio? How do we define optimal here? What is relevant?

I'm open to suggestions.

][<en

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>