This is Camilla writing----I hope I have selected the main things we are
concerned about, and will try to be sure I (and others) are clear about
them
#############
John wrote:
>Those of you who are battling with Parkinsn 'Information Overload' can set
>your subscription to nomail >and view the list at your leasure while still
>enjoying the benefits of subscription.
****This is presented as an OPTION not a SUBSTITUTE for the present list
>. If
>your concern is for privacy, use the reply button on your email program
>and email the poster
directly.
*****We can, of course, do this NOW by using REPLY, but some are unhappy
with the reduced sharing of info in the "new" option. Might not the
increased use of private mail make the list even less helpful?
>Only the current 200 messages will be viewable...after that one will need
>to search Simon's
>archives. The link is at the bottom of the message screen.
******I assume that the original list will always be available, for those
who do not have web access, so messages there will disappear only if I
choose to delete them?
>...the Parkinsn list is a set up to accept only posts from subscribers.
>Even if non-subscriber clicked on >the [log in to unmask]
>mailto: link and tried to send a message to the list..it would be
>>rejected. Having the current 200 messages online does nothing to make the
>Parkinsn list an open
>list.
*****True, the original list will not be "open", and persons who discover
it online will still need to subscribe. Some seem concerned, though, that
because anyone can request membership, and there is no way Barb P. can
"check IDs", access will be more open to possible misuse. This danger
exists for all lists, I believe, and even CARE could be abused. Monitoring
in this situation is impossible, so the concern is real.
>The table just got bigger and we widened the door. Barbara and I polled one
>another before any of this was conceived each of us have the mechanism at
>hand to pull the plug.
>We are riding in the 'boat' Parkinsn and it is owned by Barbara
>Patterson.She is under no obligation to >poll anyone when the durability
>and usability of the list are concerned.
*****I think this is at the core of some folks' reactions. We feel such a
sense of belonging and , yes, "ownership" of this list, and Barb was so
careful to ask for input before changing the "reply" setting, that it was
somewhat of a shock to be presented with a "fait accompli" with no
discussion.
>Search engines do not read "file cabinets" but rely on keywords determined
>by the web designer. >Parkinsn Online is a "file cabinet" with no ones
>name or address mentioned.
***** But aren't they on the 200 posts , along with whatever info the posts
contain?
> Folks like you and me...can find it if they search and will get to see a
>sample of what the Parkinsn list >is about...useless gossip or fact or
>caring. If they like us...they will subscribe and join us...
*****Making info re: the list widely available is a great idea---but that
does not imply that actual current messages MUST be made available. I
would think that a careful description of the nature of the list and its
"traffic" would give folks enough of an idea so that they would try it out.
I have frequent requests to join CARE from those who have found the
PDwebring, or seen CARE mentioned in articles in various places. I always
ask them to join Parkinsn first, so the participation of CGs continues
there--some drop off the main list of the volume is too much. But they get
their sense of it by joining up..
> Do not put into email anything you would not want anyone else to know.
>The internet is not >private..email is not secure unless you encrypt it
>and the person you send it to has the key to unlock it.
*****This is of course excellent advice, and applies to ANY email.
>Parkinsn Online will not attract thousands or even hundreds..perhaps 50 a
>day but out of those 50 we >will subscribe one or two pwps or
>caregivers...replacing those who have left unfilled because of our
>>indifference........
>The level and quality of the list relationships will be determined by the
>writers... Nothing really has changed only two mechanical things. Putting
>the persons name who sent >the message in the reply line from the listserv
>and porting the current messages to the web.
*****We were asked about the "reply" change, and are now being asked for
feedback about it by Barb. I still think that offering the online list as a
*possibility*, with a very clear explanation of why, and what was involved,
would have prevented much of the fear and unhappiness that has been
evident. I think it WILL change the nature of the list even further, as
people are uncomfortable to send to "everyone" for public viewing, and thus
use more offlist messages. Barb or John, please explain why this is NOT
true ???
>Embarrassment and denial are common .......
*****This seems to me to belittle some of the concerns that have been
expressed. May I point out that when Jeff and I started to collect
material for a CG webring (not progressing very fast, though) we were very
careful to
1. ask the writers of posts we wished to use if they would allow
us to use them, and
2. ask whether they wished their posts to be used anonymously.
Most said, include my name etc--some preferred not---but their material
would still be available to give a sense of the posts on CARE to folks who
found that site on the web. As a counselor, I feel very strongly about
issues of confidentiality !
I am sure that John would not have expended the time and energy to set up
the site if he had not believed it was helpful. Nor would Barb have agreed
to it--both of them have too long a record of service to us all for that to
be in question. But sometimes we can get a bit carried away in our
enthusiasm--it happens to me I know--and not be aware of how things appear
to others involved.
Camilla Flintermann Oxford,OH
http://www.newcountry.nu/pd/members/camilla/one.htm
<[log in to unmask]>
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*
We agree to differ...
we resolve to love...
we unite to serve.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
