Well, all that being as it may, my point earlier today was that Steven's post alleging that John and I had violated the rule based on three posts mid-evening one day added to two at midnight the previous day is an insane interpretation of the rule.
Now probably Steven was just being intentionally provocative, or perhaps he was making a sarcastic point about the wisdom of the rule. If the latter, he should remember, as demonstrated so many times before, that sarcasm and other forms of wit seldom come across as intended in emails.
Before accusing someone of exceeding the limit a reasonable person would look at the time of the posts and what "day" they would have fallen in at the location where they were posted, which can vary greatly considering our international membership. I assume Dale intended a "day" to be the time between when a poster arose that day until he retired for the night. To search desperately for some 24 hour period in which one might accuse a fellow member of exceeding 3 posts is to engage in a hostile and uncivil game of "gotcha". Otherwise one is compelled, before posting a third message of the day at 9:00 PM to check whether one might have posted one at 9:01 PM the previous evening and thus be in danger of having posted 4 with 23 hrs and 59 minutes. Such an interpretation would be completely ridiculous, and I do not believe Dale would ever engage in such foolishness.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote: Dale,
First, it's your list, it's a great list, you run it very well, and I think you should do whatever you want with it. I do agree that some people post too frequently, and I too would like to hear from a greater number of people. I question whether hearing more than three posts in a day (however we define a day) from certain prolific listmembers is keeping others from contributing. What is your argument, that there is a finite number of posts that the list can handle? It seems to me that the list can support however many messages are sent. If that clogs people's in box, they can switch to the digest, or use the archives in "real time." Good subject lines allow us to skip the subjects that don't interest us. Sender names (usually shown along with the subject line) allow us to skip posts from the overly chatty.
There are days and weeks that I don't post. And there are days that I have open back-and-forth with others that has included more than three posts, and I often get off-list attaboys expressing interest, support, or whatever.
Getting involvement from the non-self-appointed-elite (moi?) really hinges on people keeping a welcoming tone in their responses to new contributors. I get the sense that a lot of new contributors get scolded, often off list, and not by you, that they need to follow all the rules. The reaction of new contributors to this scolding tone seems to be the most frequently cited reason when people send those all-too-frequent "this is my last post," posts. I think the rules are generally right on, but I think we should be exceedingly gentle in how we inform the first time poster that he has violated them. There are a lot of ways to go wrong, and unfortunately a lot of people skip right past the rules list and jump in. I guess it's like all those "I agree" buttons we push without reading what we are agreeing to.
Anyway, I noticed several days ago that that you cheered a new member for getting his initial post just right. That's cool. And I suspect that you are gentle with the folks who get it wrong. But it seems that some of the rest of us should lighten way up on the newbies, because scolding tone is doing more to drive people away than a large number of posts.
I honestly almost forgot.........
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA, USA
oroboyz@aol.com wrote: Tom wrote: "...and the larger point is that limiting posts to 3-a-day is silly..."
OK, you are entitled to your opinion about the 3 per day rule being "silly" despite the capo di List (me) having made the rule for specific reasons. Obviously you, Tom, have not been bored by repetitive posts from the same people over and over. A significant number of CR list members have commented to me that they are tired of the same "voices" all the time. So am I.
We have, at last count, over 1400 members while perhaps 30 people do 90 percent of the messaging and 7 or 10 individuals vastly dominate... (Sort like who pays the real taxes,)
Of this last "elite"(?) group, I suspect many have significant more available time to sit at their computers and involve themselves with email writing... That's fine but others do not, and a smaller, more diverse message mix is the goal.
Those who want to write more frequently are more than welcome to use the other boards (BOB list and Serotta have been recommended) or consider doing their own Blog!
Tom also said; " ...provided that all posts carry some weight."
And there is another crucial discrimination to be made! If you are limited to 3 posts, the odds dramatically increase that the content will be carefully considered and "weighty"!
In any case, those are the rules. Please play the game accordingly or go away and quit whining! Ha ha!
Dale
Dale Brown Greensboro, NC USA Classicrendezvous.com
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Dalton
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 07:35:54 To:Classic Rendezvous Subject: [CR]principal's office - waking the sleeping dog
Jerry Moos wrote:
That does indeed add up to 5 posts in 24 hours, but that is not 5 posts in a day, at least not as defined by any sane person.
Say I:
Excellent point Jerry! A day can't be defined as 24 hours. Massland is nutso! We all know that each day begins when it's midnight in Big Springs. Just now I went to the archives, clicked on "today" and was stunned to find that there were entries prior to midnight CDT. Imagine, the insanity. It's as though the world is some sort of sphere smoothly rotating on a kind of axis, when we all know the entire universe rotates in discrete 24-hour jumps, around me.
Sorry, Jerry. While I don't quite understand Steven's concern, to dismiss him with this "any sane person" argument is abusrd. As an engineer you are well aware that time domain data can be windowed either continuously or discretely, and we are all aware that this list has global membership. It has occurred to me that Steven is making the point that this whole 3 posts thing is silly. He went to the archives, which, believe it or not, use a running 24 hour window to define a day, and he picked you out as an offender. Clearly you've committed no crime, and the larger point is that limiting posts to 3-a-day is silly, provided that all posts carry some weight.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA, USA
Now we have a new day, so I will respond as I did not last night. Steven's so-called "count" was arrived at by adding to my three posts yesterday two posts from the previous night, one at 11:45 PM, one at 12 minutes past midnight. That does indeed add up to 5 posts in 24 hours, but that is not 5 posts in a day, at least not as defined by any sane person. I didn't count John's posts, but I assume Steven applied the same spin to the facts in his case also.
Fortunately Dale is the Listmeister, and I am confident that Dale, unlike some, knows how to count to 3 or to 5.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
--------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
--------------------------------- Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.