Much of the time, when there is a breakdown in collegiality,
it comes about because the whole list is exposed to a
disagreement that is highly topic-specific. That could be
avoided with the proposed format.
I'm not disputing the success or value of the group --
clearly not, or why would I bother making an
intended-to-be-productive suggestion? It wasn't intended to
provoke the defensiveness that it seems to have.
Mark
On 2/18/08, jacquesdebierue <
jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
<rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Mark R. Harris"
> <brokerharris@...> wrote:
> >
> > That would require more ambition than I possess
at this point. :) And I
> > *like* this group -- I see no need to rival it,
but it should not
> get stuck
> > in what is rapidly becoming the technological
past. That was why I
> raised
> > these points.
> >
>
> I understand where you're coming from, Mark, and I
do appreciate your
> comments. However, it seems to me you're associating
the medium with
> the message, something that applies far less here
than it does where
> there is money involved. The reason for this list's
longevity is that
> it has content, that it's collegial, and also,
importantly, that it
> has proven incorruptible when it comes to opinion.
That is a merit of
> its membership, obviously, not of the
format.
>
> If the purpose of this list were to attract as many
people as possible
> in order to sell something, say advertising, you bet
the latest medium
> would be mandatory (in business terms). But it is
merely a discussion
> forum for hardboiled and noir... it's modest but it
hasn't done so badly.
>
> Best,
>
> mrt
>
>
>
-- Mark R. Harris 2122 W. Russet Court #8 Appleton WI 54914 (920) 470-9855 brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 18 Feb 2008 EST