Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:20:35 -0800 (PST)
From: "PPMAL (Hathaway/Krapf)" <ppmal@cco.caltech.edu>
To: "ABRF Hypermail (Dirk Krapf)" <abrfhyp@cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: final reply from the anti-lurker (fwd)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:33:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Ombudsman account for AECOM <ombudsmn@aecom.yu.edu>
To: Recipients of ABRF List <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: final reply from the anti-lurker (fwd)
To the Ombudsman
The replies to my original "lurker" posting reminded me of what a
teacher told me once after a parent-teacher meeting; "the parents that
show up at these conferences are never the ones that you need to see".
Out of approximately 600 suspected lurkers who had a chance to reply
(really now, Prof. Stewart- a lurker?), about SIX replies were made -
all coming from bona fide scientists. Get the point?
I think that the list should be reviewed because I don't believe in the
bigger is better theory. I don't know exactly how to pare the list
although I can come up with ideas. How about a questionnaire:
-------------
1. Why do you want to be on the list?
Answer A: I'm a scientist interested in some of the things that you
people discuss.
-------------
Action A: add to list
--------------
Answer B: I work for a manufacturer of equipment and chemicals and want
to monitor what you guys are doing so I can make even more money and
keep you all from honestly discussing equipment, etc. I have absolutely
nothing to offer and everything to gain.
-------------
Action B: Please remit $5,000 per year for each email address from your
company that you wish to receive postings.
------------
I must be the only one reluctant to opine in front of 600 total
strangers, some of whom may not have my best interest or any scientific
interest at heart.
I don't think its "absurd" to pare the list (Let's try to be more
diplomatic in the future, comrade). Doesn't anyone else want to know who
these 600 people are?
Another issue brought up in the rebuttals was the equation of "quick and
dirty" with intellectual laziness. If encouraging people to use the
list, even though they are not 100% sure that their opinions are 100%
correct, or to use the list even if they don't have all day to compose a
lengthy reply, then call me lazy. I've seen some replies on the list
that I know now to have been less than correct, but they were still
interesting possible solutions at the time and this is research. If you
knew a reply was wrong, why didn't you correct it on the list? Were you
afraid to because you didn't know who you were talking to? Shame on you.
If I was List Master, I would put you on probation for dereliction of
duty. I have never considered any of the replies that I have read to be
"opinions pronounced ex cathedra masquerading as truth." Maybe one
should lighten up just a bit.
I did enjoy reading the replies. Thanks to all, especially Ruth. Keep on
listing and have a happy new year.
The intellectually lazy, uncompassionate, unsympathetic anti-lurker,
list parer