Vocalist.org archive


From:  Patricia M Smith <dgcsorcmgr@j...>
Patricia M Smith <dgcsorcmgr@j...>
Date:  Sat Oct 7, 2000  10:39 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] list ADMIN stuff


I hate to be "me too"-ing but I don't always have time to read my
Vocalist e-mail everyday. Earlier in the week I had 241 unread messages
at this address. In order to be able to respond at all to that volume of
messages would require several hours because everything would have to be
read twice & notes would have to be taken, otherwise, I would surely
forget things.

Pat

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:14:03 +0100 Linda Fox <linda@f...>
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:14:03 +0100 Linda Fox <linda@f...>
writes:
> Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
> >
> > Hail, fellow listers,
> >
> > Please refrain from sending one- or two-line
> > responses, witty comebacks, or "me too" messages to
> > the list. It has always been a Vocalist policy to
> > limit unnecessary bandwidth and particularly short
> > messages/replies, especially for those listers who pay
> > for their bandwidth. Also, please be courteous about
> > taking back-and-forth debates involving only two
> > people into private email.
> >
> > Also, I might propose that, instead of sending ten or
> > twelve short responses immediately after reading, you
> > perhaps think about combining your thoughts into one
> > or two messages a day. Many lists have an enforced
> > two-post-a-day policy, but I don't think we need to be
> > that formal about it. One of the great things about
> > this list is the back-and-forth discussions about
> > technique and other vocal issues, but seeing one
> > person's name in the list of messages more than ten
> > times a day (and there are several offenders in this
> > arena, myself occasionally included) is a bit much.
>
> Isabelle:
>
> I appreciate your concerns in this, but it's really not what
> appealed to
> me - and probably to others - about the original Vocalist. I would
> concur about the "me too" messages, but to post on several topics in
> the
> one post is confusing. I know not everyone follows up a thread in
> the
> same way, but my server sorts by thread, and when I read my posts,
> that
> is precisely what I get - a continuous "thread" on the same train of
> thought. To keep skipping to and fro between different issues I
> would
> find very confusing, not to say irritating. This is my sixth post
> today
> - a fact for which I apologize if it upsets you; but I still prefer
> to
> write separately on each matter, particularly as many replies are to
> one
> person's specific question, but of interest to all of us. Even the
> "me
> too" messages often _need_ to be seen, if the writer feels a need to
> show _public_ support and appreciation. I once subscribed to
> Choralist,
> but public responding was frowned on there, though sometimes the
> original writer would post a summary of the replies they had got. I
> found this frustrating and sterile and eventually unsubscribed.
>
> I do belong to a couple of newsgroups on Usenet, but there's nothing
> quite like Vocalist there. And my partner, who is a computer
> officer,
> always pulls me up sharply if I jumble up the expressions "mail" and
> "posting" and "news" and "newsgroup" and "mailing list". AIUI,
> Vocalist
> comes to me through e-mail: it appears in the same folder on
> Netscape.
> The original Vocalist was a mailing list, wasn't it, or have I got
> that
> wrong?
>
> Linda
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________

emusic.com