I too, like Peter and Richard have precious little time to give to the
sifting of e-mail generated by this LISTSERV, and have frequently thought
of unsubscribing. I don't because I hold the belief that eventually
something will come through which will be of interest to me, and because I
like being a part of a community of blind computer users. What I object
to more than the receipt of e-mail which is uninteresting to me,
personally,
is the receipt of these articles in dupliclate, triplicate and even, at
times, quadruplicate.
We should try to do something to resolve a problem which is troubling to,
at
least, some of us. I applaud Peter and Richard for speaking up about an
issue I, and perhaps others like me would have let go on unvoiced.
George
On Tue,
25 Mar 1997, Richard M Keller wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, William Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Paul Mimms wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Peter, I can understand your belif of why we are all here, but I
> > > think that belief is only personal. Many of us who were the early
> > > subscribers to this list were active in computer user groups across the
> > > country. One of the main reasons for many of these groups, including the
> > > one I started, is to provide information to our group members.
> >
> > Paul,
> > Are you sure Peter wasn't pulling our chains with his expression of
> > distaste for the article posters? I mean, the irony of having just read
> > that excellent article on the "pushing" of information just prior to
> > Peter's message didn't go over my head, even if it was unintentional!
> >
> > For what it's worth, I honestly don't even know why we're attempting to
> > establish a uniform subject field pattern for this list, as past
> > experience has shown us that such a thing rarely works for long in this
> > medium! Perhaps I missed some of the logic expressed when the subject
> > field categorization was proposed, but frankly, even if everyone did
> > follow the rules it wouldn't save me much time in my reading, or
> > non-reading for that matter! If one is going to stick around in this all
> > so transient medium, they best master the art of separating the wheat
> > from the chaff on their own, as that's the only thing they can depend on!
> >
> > Ok, that's my single, obligatory message for this list, just as I post in
> > most lists to which I subscribe, so back to lurker status...
> > Willie
> >
> >
> >
> Hi all
>
> I struggle with the amount of time that it takes me to search through and
> read the volume of mail this list provides me with. Perhaps instead of
> sending complete articles posters could write a breif synthesis of a
> particular item and provide a means of retreiving it ones-self. It seems
> that this is in the spirit of empowerment. I enjoy this list, but have
> considered unsubscribing a few times since as a professional I can only
> spend a small portion of my time on this material. I must also keep up in
> developments in my field and maintain job related correspondence. It
> seems to me that we are all aware of the importance of conserving valuable
> reading time
> , we should remain flexible with each other and develop strategies to keep
> participants involved. Does anyone share these feelings or have a
> solution to this situation.
>
> R Keller
>
|