 |
 |
Useful, constructive discussion, George. Thinking in more general terms, the days need to be shortened when companies like this one can engage in public commerce yet hide behind the simple statements that they are "private" entities, saying, in effect, it's nobody's business but our own who we are; how much we are; who we brib, err lobby; what our goals, our mission is , etc. A comment re the supposed 1,600 member pool from Mr.. Blatz could have expected responses -i don't think that we have a participating forum here of 1,600 people. Barbara Patterson recently posted some stats on List participation and i think the figure was around 100 who ever contribute. Given the fact that most new "posters" "lurk" for awhile before contributing that number could be, say, doubled or tripled, for the sake of argument. I cannot believe that many more than that of those 1500 non-contributors read many at all of the 50+ [?] tidbits of wisdom which flow out of here each day. It would be just too boring, in my opinion, if no thought were being given to responding, commenting etc. Skimming over some of them? Sure. Looking for key Subjects of interest? Yes. But truly reading many of these messages to the point of calling it participation? Thinking now also of former "posters" who may still be reading, i would say beyond 3-400 or so, I doubt it. My point? Nothing other than accuracy of the semantics we are using - and certainly not worthy of all the words i just used in discussing this. But since i already typed 'em, there they are!