Janet Detter Margul <janet @
> Okay, this lurker will bite on that one. I see all the list
> personality types you mention, do you see my "need to organize" types?
I sure do...and here we diverge, I'm afraid. To me, the Need To Organize
at least represents some level of commitment, some energy; they
are awake, they have a pulse! I love 'em! I say, here, what can I do
I think a bigger gap exists between those of us who manage a list and
those who are deeply involved in that list than even the gulch between
Pro- and Anti-HTML. (Please understand I don't mean Janet Margul - I am
so jazzed she wrote because it brings up an ingredient I have found
lacking here; managing humans rather than simply software.)
Some have massive forums and colossal contributions to them, and they
see themselves as police chiefs; they are especially attentive to
malefactors and their misdeeds. Others of us are very invested in the
group we host on its own merits, and our question is, how can we slice
out blots and mars without losing contributors?
Some specialize in the tools, some are intent on the job.
If I had an operation which featured background private interviews with
Survivor castoffs, say, I would be poised at the door like the old
Studio 54 capos. I don't have those numbers. I have just over four
hundred (maybe that disqualifies me from even writing here) hardy souls
in a gathering which requires more energy than the usual chat group.
Consequently, I regularly deal with so-called abuses with more diplomacy
than some suggestions I have seen here.
> And don't we all have the list police, the ones who point out every
> waste of bandwidth/minor infraction (talk about a waste of space)?
I have one advantage in a digest; no abuses are allowed out into the
mainstream. I can write privately to those who don't understand our
premises. Also, as we are a collective of writers of journals, memoirs,
diaries, there are no chat comments at all, and certainly no criticism
of other writers. This avoids a whole lot of headache.
The forums I remember with hordes of nitters comprised lots of
adolescent males who were very insecure, and that's a prime feature of
the critic combine. I think material weight can be figured pretty
precisely in the irritant/response ratio.
> And the list urban legend passer... and the list urban legend
> buster... and on and on and on and on...
I hate those. In fact, I was just reading in here, from Chug, I think,
about the nature of online neighborhoods, and I keep evolving on that
point myself. Once it was considered beneficial to be in touch with
your subconscious, and there is a greater opportunity for that online, I
think. If you agree to a chore or a duty in a physical setting, you are
physically coerced into performing it, for your neighbors or colleagues
will be in your face daily. But online, you are incorporeal as a soul,
and may flit about as you list (to coin a phrase). You see many scraps
and insults online which would not occur in public (the list I formed
for my high school class was very instructive on the nature of
gatherings - we were famous friends when we met in public and so proud
we had overcome those legendary underhanded connivings and jealousies
which had rended us so long ago - however, the online list blew up over
underhanded connivings and jealousies) and you eventually end up with
the idea that all morality is based upon the self-interest of anyone in
a social setting - I want to appear to my own advantage, and if I have
no appearance, then I have also no restraints.
That's one item I do insist upon. I don't care to host any list which
allows netbilge. It's like visiting someone and they keep the damn
TV blaring the whole time you are there. If you didn't write it, I tell
them, then we've already seen it elsewhere, and don't need it here.
Thanks for writing, Janet.
org (Tim Bowden)
"The reason you can never go home again
is because you can never leave." - Timocrates