For the most part, I agree whole heartedly that "global"
messages [sent out to the entire PD list server community]
are in the best interest of the "900+" - but in the same
breath, I feel that in certain instances, private posts between
individuals are not only appropriate, but in the best interest of
the 900+ as a whole, and I respect the senders decision as
to the method chosen to make any and all posts found on
this list.
A case in point: there are several of us who are working on
the "NADH vs Q1 vs Q10" confusion factor that seems to
have arisen [again?] on the list. The "sub-group" includes a
biochemist, research scientist, and several other interested
people on the list, as well as several individuals not on the
list but available via e-mail through INTERNET including a
retail outlet manager, MD, book publisher, etc. Most of the
information that is passing between us is of a "research"
nature - technical questions defining areas of concern,
preliminary findings, "arguing" [my son says it's debating],
etc. that may in fact add fuel to the fire relative to confusion
about this subject area.
This is not to say that others out there don't have something
to add, but rather several of us have taken a pro-active
stance on this issue, and are simply trying to keep the size
of the "working group" at an efficient level [however -
comments, input, etc. are always welcomed and
encouraged, either as personal posts or global ones]. The
point to be made is that until definitive answers to the
question[s] have been obtained, global broadcast of
intermediate messages is not warranted in my opinion.
Perhaps a better way to serve the PD list server community
would be to send a brief "global" post letting the 900+ know
that such an activity is being conducted, and, at the same
time, soliciting inputs from the community at large [ala this
post]. Periodic updates on progress could be made, much
the same as it is for me in my everyday scientific research.
And when our goal is reached, a global summary post will be
made that [hopefully] should put the issue to rest.
But in the end, each individual must "police" their own posts,
and decide if "global" is the way to go. Likewise, people who
receive "personal posts" should decide if such information is
better contributed globally, and can forward a copy of the
post to the list server for broad dissemination as some have
chosen to do. I respect such choices, and will continue to
read my mail, for I don't always know from the "SUBJ:" line
just what I might find "in the envelope" as it were, and I will
continue to rely on the underlying assumption that the
sender has an honest desire to add to the "corporate
wisdom" of the group, both now as well as in the future
[through the archives].
I for one tend towards the conservative - I'd rather send
something globally and risk "flames" for it, than hold back
information that could even in the smallest way, touch
another person connected to PD [of course I have a tough
hide!]. But if I feel that a message might confuse or mislead,
I will refrain from broadcasting it and risking more damage
than good.
If in doubt - send it out - globally!
Jim
"So what if I can't do 2000 things anymore -
just think of all the extra time I have
to do the 1800 things I still can do!"
jea
-[ INTERNET e-mail: ]---------------------------
| |
| [log in to unmask] |
| -or- |
| [log in to unmask] |
| (for those of you who hate typing like me) |
| |
------------------------------------------------
