Signal/Noise

[Meg Larson]

> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 8:58 AM
> 
> Jay Carlson writes:
> 
> >In general I've been disappointed with the overall signal to noise
> >ratio here.  Perhaps I've been hanging out with the technologists too
> >long, but at least they're pretty good at taking flames to email, not
> >quoting an entire message to add a single sentence of reply, not
> >replying to messages that it's obvious somebody else is already going to
> >reply to, formatting messages nicely, usw.
> 
> Disagree strongly, particularly in light of an experience I just had on
one
> of those lists run by technos.
> 
> Last week I posted a query to a website critique list about the risks
> involved in putting my five-year-olds' pictures up on their web pages. 
In
> a twinkling one of the jackbooted "List Guides" who moderates the list
> snipped that thread, ruling it to be "off-topic" and threatened to
sanction
> anyone who responded on-list to it.  I was forbidden to post any argument
> to the list as to why I believed my post was well within the scope of the
> list's topic, so I could not appeal for the support of other list members
> or even poll the list for concurrence/dissent from the List Guide's
ruling.
> 
> 
> The whole affair made me more appreciative of the P-list environment,
where
> the scope of our topic is viewed expansively, where posts that initially
> seem to come from left field (if not outer space) often wind up shedding
> unexpected light on TRP's works, where people are allowed to be their
> eccentric selves, where content is esteemed more than form.  Yes, it's
> frustrating when easily-made, impossible-to-refute charges of racism,
> sexism and antisemitism roil the Pynheads, but that's the price we pay
for
> freedom of thought.  I know Jay wasn't suggesting that we appoint
Platonic
> guardians to "guide" the discussion on this list; I'm just pointing out
> that the lower limit of what is an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio is a
> pretty subjective thing. Having just experienced a list where everything
is
> on-topic and nothing is interesting, the P-list feels pretty good.
> 
> *sniff, getting all sentimental*  Ha!
> 
> --Jimmy
>   http://www.angelfire/com/oh/Insouciance/index.html

Hey Jimmy--is this what he's talking about?
;-)
 Meg
>