[at-l] Staying on Topic

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

sAunTerer wrote:
>This is likely to get me blasted but could we dispense with these sports
>rivalry posts?  Take your digs at one another off list please.  90% of what
>I just downloaded had nothing to do with hiking.  I'd almost rather have
>the Trail Advocacy arguements back.  Almost, but not really.

Jim -
Would you REALLY want to have the 4000 posts per month back?  And the signal
to noise ratio then was even worse than it is now.



Cliff wrote:
From: <DaRedhead@aol.com>
>  This is the only list that lets you
>be yourself, and talk about things important to you, even if they aren't
>"on topic".
Wrong this list just kicked off "Trail Advocacy" chatter. Guess it's just
what's politically correct for the list bullies, the click.

Wrong, Cliff - it's what the list owner wanted.  So far the only complaints
I've heard have come from 4 people (including you).  Somehow I think the
rest of the 800+ people on the list are happier this way.  At least that's
what many of them have told me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that
there's a "clique" that controls the content and participation on this list
- maybe you'd like to back that up?  There are over 800 people on the list -
and somewhere around 120 (15%) who have posted so far this month - and the
month's not over yet.  Since most email lists struggle to get a 5-10%
participation rate, I don't think the "clique"  theory has much going for
it.  The range of topics doesn't seem to support it either - nor does the
fact that it's rare that a "newby" question or comment gets ignored now.
You might want to remember last year when "newby" questions simply got lost
in the clutter fo the 4000 post per month blizzard --- and many, if not
most, of the "newbies" disappeared very quickly.

Is there a "core" of people who participate and support the list?  Yep.

Are you one of them?  Or are you one of those who participate and denigrate
the list, its members and its purpose?  I won't answer that question cause
it's your choice, your decision.  I don't know the answer because your
responses are, and always have been, mixed.

Some time ago I was accused of putting out "argumentative diatribes" by
someone who considers any opposition to his ideas or purposes to be
argumentative. So I'll happily claim the "argumentative" designation.  But
the "diatribe" part needs to be re-examined - the definition of diatribe is:

bitter criticism: a bitter verbal or written attack on somebody or
something.  Originally, in English, learned discourse; its connotations of
bitter resentment date from the 19th century.

And lately the only bitterness I've seen here has come from those who
opposed the formation of the TA list.

Finally - I noticed that you disappeared from TA - can't stand the heat,
Cliff?  Or is it that the subjects and/or arguments aren't worth your time?
Well, if they're not worth your time  on TA - why do you think they should
be welcome on at-l where they'd waste the time of a lot more people to say
nothing of the time, energy and money of the man who owns this list?

Walk softly,
Jim








_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx