 |
 |
Hi. SJS here. In the Oct. 28 PD Digest, Dale Severance argued that my suggestions (posted earlier), about how to deal with those huge encoded files that people have been sending to the Digest, are unworkable -- and that "disgruntled" subscribers go elsewhere. If my suggestions seemed unworkable to Dale, that's okay (although I do think that they can indeed work & make for easier & more efficient access for all). Disagreement on a technical matter is fine with me. But to suggest, as his post does, that "disgruntled" persons (presumably meant to include me, but I am *not* "disgruntled" except for the "static" that those huge encoded files represent to me! Nor do I suspect that others who have expressed a problem with having to plow through those huge encoded attachments are, except for the problems brought by those files, "disgruntled" either!) leave this list -- Well, I consider THAT suggestion to be unproductive, uncalled-for, and NOT a good solution to resolving the problem of (a) how to prevent the PD Digests from becoming so memory-hungry as to be a drain on the servers and on the hard-drives of our fellow susbcribers, (b) how to keep the PD Digests streamlined (though information-packed) so as to be easily scrolled-through & easily-read by all the subscribers, (c) how to still make possible (& perhaps easier) the transmission of encoded files from & to interested PD Digest subscribers. Whatever the technical solution, let me make an emphatic point or two here: I signed onto this listserv a long time ago, and I access it just about every day. Why? To see pictures of a face or a town? No. I access it because someone very dear to me has Parkinson's (as I know that many of you do) -- and I am desparately searching for solutions. The PD Digest, and the information-packed contributions of so many contributors to this listserv, are of great value to me (and presumably to many of you too). THAT'S why I support this listserv and access it -- NOT to be forced to wade through tangential tomes of encoded photographs. Yes, I understand that some subscribers will find value in transmitting or receiving decodable images of their fellow listserv members etcetera -- if that's what they desire, that's okay with me. But I suspect that not all of us have an interest in sending or receiving (or being forced to wade through) those files. I also personally feel that those huge encoded files -- unless they're of something critically important -- interfere with the usefulness & value of the PD Digest as a whole. Too many usenet newsgroups, for example, which were established to focus on one or another very specific area relating to health or the sciences, have been wiped out by the "spam-effect" -- i.e., by too many people (or sometimes by mindless software programs) submitting junkmail "get-rich-quick schemes" or "xxx-rated sales pitches" and the like. The value of those particular newsgroups, which initially had been quite good, soon plummeted, and almost nobody submits serious materials to them anymore. I would hate to see a parallel situation -- the loss of concerned members if the Digest becomes too encumbered with narrowly-useful huge encoded files -- happen to the PD Digest. The Digest, and the observations & opinions of its subscribers, are too important for us to allow this to happen, and the overriding value of the PD Digest must be preserved. So, again, I suggest: Can someone perhaps set up, or come up with a way to arrange, an ALTERNATE way for interested persons to transmit/post their encoded files (especially their photos)? Might someone want, for instance, to arrange a website for this, or make a deal with an existing website -- perhaps the "dystonia" website that someone mentioned? Or, if those ideas won't do, how about if the person who wants to transmit the encoded file instead posts an INVITATION, here in the PD Digest, inviting all who would wish to receive that file to REPLY -- including their e-address -- that they would like to receive that file? Then the sender would send the file directly to those individuals and NOT to the entire PD Digest subscribership (who, by their not requesting the file, would thus be showing that they would NOT want to receive that file in the first place). Enough. -- SJS 10/28/97 (1:22PM NYT) ********************************