Hi William,
Here it is a wonderful sunny day in Arizona..and I am spending my time
trying to come with a word or words to use instead of lurk.
Here are two
non-participating observer or "non-pobser" or for those
of us Grandparents that, at times,
care for our very young grandchildren "non-poopers"
And for those that are silent observers we have "sobs", that
may be useful for all those who need to call others emotionally charged
names to make a point.
Other names, not so creative would include "peepers",
"just lookers", "watchers","readers",
etc..
We have about 1500 list members, many complain of an over abundance of
mail. One can wonder if every one wrote and actively participated what
would we have ?
On the record now, I would like to thank all those "only
readers"; this reminds me of my elementary school music teacher, who
appointed me the "Official Listener" of our class after she
heard my singing. Bill, please tell me I didn't set myself up, o well, my
heart was pure.
Bernie
At 07:41 AM 11/27/99 -0800, WILLIAM MASON wrote:
I'd rather be a
"lurker" than some of those "gas passers" I've seen.
POGO!
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Joe Thome
- To:
[log in to unmask]
- Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:18 PM
- Subject: Lurking
- Recently I have seen the word "lurker" used numerous times on this list to describe those members of the list who read the list but don t contribute to it, or at least not very often. That word has such a negative connotation. To me, it implies there are people who read the list for sinister purposes. If there are, my opinion they constitute a tiny minority of the list members and it is not fair to describe the other members who have reasons of their own for reading but not contiubuting as "lurkerers". Surely there must be a more appropriate word to use than "lurkerer" in describing all who read by don't write to the list.
- Joe, CG for Ruth, 68/10
-