Dennis Greene wrote:
>
> In the 9 months in which I have been a member of this
> list, the 'banter/list split' debate has come to a head twice
> and has been alive and well and living under the surface
> the rest of the time.
>
> Each time the subject has surfaced it has become 'bigger
> than Ben Hur' (or as the subject is future directions should
> I say 'Quo Vadis') and generated more traffic than the 'banter'
> which generated it. Each time suggestions are made about
> splitting this list into 'interest groups'.  The debate seems to
> ignore the following:
>
> 1.      Topics are dynamic, they grow from one another.
>         Within a year (at a guess) each of the 'one issue'
>         lists will have diversified.
>
> 2.      The fact that topics are dynamic is a part of the
>         strength of the list.  One line in a posting can result
>         in a whole new thread ( and if we are really lucky,
>         a whole new title in the Subject box).  If anyone
>         genuinely believes this is a bad thing I wish them
>         luck with controling it.
>
> 3.      It is imposible to find a universaly acceptable definition
>         for the phrase "off-line topic".  (This is not a challenge,
>         simply a statement of fact). Any definition which would
>         exclude banter, for example, would probably also exclude
>         discusion on the day by day, representative by
>         representative details of the Udall bill. It is actually a lot
>         easier to find a definition for 'on-line' topics, which would
>         include both subjects.
>
> 4.      Those people who feel strongly that alternate lists are
>         viable and desirable are at liberty to set them up. They
>         are also at liberty to either leave this list or remain on it.
>         The choice is theirs.
>
> 5.      Finally, as I see it, the real question in regard to the list
>         is "do I belong to to it for what I can get out of it, or for
>         what  I can give to it?"  For most of us the answer will
>         be a balance of the two.  We join for what help we can
>         get.  With time we find ourselves giving more and more.
>         Hopefully a balance evolves.  As for me, if the day ever
>         comes when I feel that not only am I not getting anything
>         from being here, but ALSO that I am not giving anything
>         to the list,  I shall fold my tents, say my goodbyes and
>         leave. Why would I stay? Why would you want me to?
>
> Lets get real. If anyone is actually going to set up specialist lists let
> them do it.  If anyone is planing on leaving because of percieved
> deficencies in the list, please do so, preferably without blaming me for
> their actions.  To those of you still  out there busy Udalling and
> bantering
> and even occasionly mentioning PD - Hi, I'm still here, 2 cents worth at
> the ready, glad of your support and offering mine.
>
> Dennis
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> Dennis Greene 47/10
> [log in to unmask]
> http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/
> ++++++++++++++++++++

Dennis,
Excellent! I agree with all of your reasoning and your conclusions.

---Milo


--
Milo V. Anderson, Ph.D.             Knowledge is free at the library;
Box 417                             bring your own contianer.
Angwin, CA
94508
voice 707 965 2508                     ODE TO A METAPHOR
fax   707 965 3148                  Ilustrations are useful,
e-mail [log in to unmask]             Or what's a meta-FOR.