>I was going to stay out of this discussion this time, but
>being short on will power and long on opinion here I am
>again.
Heh :-). I'll plead guilty to that one as well.
>As is usual in this discussion the battle has centered on
>whether humour and banter are relevant to the list. Those
>'against' argue that those 'for' should leave and create
>lists of their own, citing the examples of the CARE list,
>PDUK, and Parkeliste.
In my opinion, banter is only half the problem. General traffic
levels are the underlying issue. When traffic is low, people are
very tolerant of off-topic stuff. When we are at the level
of traffic we are at now, people get a *lot* more sensitive, and
"general banter" is the most common target.
I think humour and banter are important. I'd like to grow our
space so we can engage in it without causing upset.
>What seems to escape the notice of those taking that
>point of view is that each of the above was set up in
>response to a perceived need, by those who perceived
>the need. I don't recall Bernard Joly even once demanding
>that those of us who didn't want to use French, should
>leave this list and set up our own English speaching list.
Good point. I think PARKLISTE is special - its mandate is
"Like PARKINSN but in French". There isn't any overlap with
PARKINSN really.
>Not to mince words, it falls to those who perceive a need
>for a "no nonsense" list, to set one up. They will achieve
>little by demanding that the opposite camp leave and set
>up their own lists, the opposite camp don't perceive the need.
I personally am not demanding anyone leave anything.
I am happy to setup lists for people.
The reason I would like to get some agreement before setting
lists up is because if people don't feel I've done the right
thing, we'll end up in a mess.
e.g. if we created PDDRUGS, and 50% of people really supported
it, and 50% of people were dead against it, we'd all lose.
- on PARKINSN, drug questions would be asked
- and people who wanted to specifically
hear about drugs wouldn't see it
- possibly, the authors would get
shouted down in PARKINSN for being off-topic
- on PDDRUGS, people who didn't agree with the split
wouldn't join the list
However, if we all agreed that one or two specialised lists
were in order, then everything would proceed swimmingly, no
problems would occur, and our community could grow and flourish.
Traffic levels would drop to where people didn't mind the
occasional banter.
Something in me says that the basic problem here is a reluctance
to embrace change, to see any change in our structure as a bad
thing. Maybe declaring UDI and just setting a couple of lists
up is the thing to do. But I'm uncomfortable doing that as I
don't want to be percieved as setting up rival lists to PARKINSN.
(apart from the fact that if that is the perception, it won't
work, and I'll be wasting my time).
>This posting is not intended as a comment on the rightness
>or wrongness of either point of view. It is intended as a
>piece of practical politics, in the forlorn hope of seeing the
>end of this cyclical argument.
You and me both. But it will keep coming up time and again (I've
seen this in other forums - both where the split was done well,
and where it was done badly).
Question - if we did setup PDDRUGS and perhaps PDANNOUNCE, would
you support them? (by "support" I mean subscribe to them and direct
relevant info to those lists and not to PARKINSN).
Simon
--------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ----------
Simon J. Coles Email: [log in to unmask]
New Information Paradigms Work Phone: +44 1344 778783
http://www.nipltd.com/ http://james.parkinsons.org.uk/
=============== Life is too precious to take seriously ===============
