On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> But seriously, this is an area of increasing fascinating to me.
> You go to different lists run by different people, and you see
> highly divergent ways of dealing with stuff, and (usually)
> populations for which those choices and management styles work
> fine. And I'm really curious why.
One more complicating factor, though I don't know how it
may fit into the survey : peer effect. Each of the lists I have any
experience with has its own customs and taboos, and the regulars
tend to take the newcomers in hand and socialize them into the
list's customs -- explicitly when necessary, for such as lack the
nettiquette to lurk a while and pick them up by observation and
But this cuts both ways. I'm the same oddball on all the
lists I frequent -- yes, even more so on the ones I run -- but I
adhere to the local customs on each, at least closely enough to
keep from getting flamed or ostracized. If you know me from one,
you'll recognize me (mostly) on another, but you can't predict the
details unless you also know the other.
The point is, that seems to be the norm: no mapping between
lists and users is one-to-one in *either* direction, but always
effectively many-to-many, even when there's only one warm body.
Corroboration: Agent & FreeAgent, for example, allow a user
to have a *different* dedicated .sig for each subscribed group;
some of us doubtless have them for lists as well, such as mine for
Autocat that mentions I'm an LC retiree. I don't use that one on my
hunting list, nor a hunting one here -- though I do use this one on
the hunting list, where a dozen or so of the several dozen hunters
are also computer people.
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger <karhunhammas (at) lserv.com>
double retiree, linux greenhorn running pine 4.43 on ISP's SunOS 5.8;
Opera 6.02, Pan 0.11.2, Galeon 1.2.0, & Mozilla 0.9.9 under RH 7.2
Simplicity is an illusion.