[14850] in APO-L
Re[2]: Suggestion for APO lists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liston Bias)
Wed Aug 14 08:11:06 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:07:24 EST
Reply-To: Liston Bias <BIASL@smtp.dc.doe.state.fl.us>
From: Liston Bias <BIASL@smtp.dc.doe.state.fl.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Jonathan T. Alloy wrote: By splitting into new lists, I think we will:
> * lose subscribers regularly, as people unsub at the end of semesters and
> forget to resub
> * not get people involved, as they may not know about all the lists
> * generate unneeded excess traffic, as corollary to someone's law that
> "work (or traffic) expands to fill the time (or the lists) available"
> * miss out on the synergy of conversations, as one topic bounces into
another
I agree with much of the above comments. When you make life more diverse
(multi-dimensional) you are bound to get some people confused. I would hope
that we could help them through the changes with some definition as to the
function of list.
I find the third point particular interesting. It is my hope that a new
list would produce more traffic. I KNOW there are people out there who are
timid to post to APO-L because there is concern about too much traffic and
some people really do not like discussions lasting beyond a week. It is my
belief, and hope, that a new list would encourage people to express their
opinion/beliefs about trends & legislation facing the fraternity. Does
this conflict with the current purpose of APO-L? perhaps, but APO-L can be
redefined to what is currently does.
Until someone takes initiative to set up a list and try this, we will never
know. If nobody subscribes to the new list (no discussion will occur) and
it will obviously die. I don't have the means to set up such a list.
- Liston
bias@vistech.net
