🚀 go-pugleaf

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 943. Thursday, 18 Jan 1990.

Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 90 08:19:12 EST
From:   Natalie Maynor <MAYNOR@MSSTATE>
Subject:    Re: 3.938 e-seminars; more on Bloom et al. (106)

Although I agree, of course, that we have Willard to thank for much
of the success of HUMANIST, I'm writing to tell those of you who
subscribe to only a few lists that there are certain advantages of
unmoderated lists.  True, unmoderated lists often include junk-
mail:  requests that should be sent to the listserv are sometimes
sent to the whole list, redundant answers are given to a question,
etc. (sorry about that -- I *like* "etc."). In spite of having to
delete junk-mail, I prefer the fast flow of unmoderated lists.
Because they are making full use of the speed of e-mail, the
discussions tend to be livelier.  And because each posting arrives
separately, it is easier to delete unread or partially read those not
of interest -- i.e., grouped mailings require wading through three
postings not of interest in order to reach number four.  Again let me
say that there are trade-offs and that clearly Willard's work has
made HUMANIST an efficient list.  Recent postings, however, have made
me think that some of you may not be aware of the cornucopia of lists
out there, many of which are quite active and quite interesting --
unlike ENGLISH, which is neither of the above.