Re: [at-l] digest?

>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: [at-l] digest?
>Author:  "Christopher Wood" <CHRISW@LANDMARKNET.NET> at ima
>Date:    11/9/99 11:18 PM
>
>
>did i read on someone's post that if you get this list in digest form that
you
>are not really a good lister?
>
>hoops at97 pct95
>
>***********SloeThatToe steps up with:
>     That was probably mine, hoops, where I was juxtaposing one lister's
>     alleged knowledge of and involvement with the at-l against their
>     "digest" subscription status. Not a question of worth, but of
>     involvement; and to be clear, "involvement" in terms of quantity *and*
>     quality. When you are involved with a thread by virtue of having
>     posted to it, you read your own posts and responses to your own posts
>     with more involvement, and you get a better picture of the general
>     demeanor of the persons with which you're inter-posting. The more such
>     dialogue takes place, the less likely one person is to misread the
>     tone of another's post. And in that give and take, learning should
>     take place on everybody's part. Maybeeee even trail related.
>
>     The lister in question positioned themselves as knowledgeable of and
>     involved with the at-l. Not only were they not an at-l lister for any
>     period of time, but they were subscribed as digestors, indicating to
>     me that they didn't even *intend* on being involved with the at-l.
>     (Some personal knowledge of that lister also colored my response.)
>
>     Digestors generally don't handle the volume of traffic of direct mail
>     messages because of online cost, available time (while at work,
>     even!?!), or simply because of interest. They scan the digests, plow
>     through the dattodumps or felixnotes or the sloetoespewings, and get
>     the good stuff from Cale-EEE or Gimmee or Bethany, and move on.
>
>     I subscribe to nine different lists. These include
>     LIST                       VOLUME                  SUBSCRIPTION
>     at-l                       medium                  DIRECT
>     dead runner's society      high                    digest
>
>     and maybe once a week volume from:
>     dead runner's mind         very low                digest
>     zendead                    very low                digest
>     IndyHashHouseHarriers      very low                DIRECT*
>     IndyUltimateFrisbie        very low                DIRECT*
>     D.A.D.D.S.                 zero!                   DIRECT*
>     H.A.T.T.                   very low                DIRECT*
>     A.L.D.H.A.                 very low                DIRECT*
>                                               *no digest available anyway.
>
>     Nine lists! Zioks! Sounds incredible! But the volume from seven of
>     them is de minimus. Of the at-l and dead runner's ("Carpe Viam" ==
>     Seize the Road!), I could never handle the volume of the drs, so I
>     digest. I post to the drs perhaps once a week, even though I've hosted
>     more drs'ers at my house than at-l'ers so far. In truth, I can barely
>     handle the at-l right now.....and should have made good on a move to
>     go "digest" back in July. (I still receive the at-l digest, just in
>     case I have to bail!)
>
>     To summarize: IMO, digesting is a measure of involvement. I have the
>     time to be "involved" on the at-l, and thoroughly enjoy it, and have
>     made so many FRIENDS come to life just by showing up somewhere and
>     connecting faces to names. Any excuse will do! But in point of fact,
>     that quality of involvement is totally available to digesters, too, or
>     "newcomers" for that matter, just by showing up, to a Ruck or Trail
>     Daze or Gathering or whatever, or by stepping into a hot thread with
>     your own view. Not only are you "worthy", you are "life blood"!
>
>     Yeesh! "Groupthink" from the '60s Org Theorists! If this list were to
>     get into a status thing where lurkers/digestors/newcomers did not feel
>     welcome to throw out their thoughts or suggestions or editorial
>     opinions, the list itself would rot from internal decay, and collapse.
>     And deserve to.
>
>     Sloetoe
>     (an at-l lister for all of one year.)
>
>
>
>
>
>

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================