Moderated alternative
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tony Hoskins
Moderated alternative
Peter Stewart just mentioned this (I was unaware it was perhaps in the
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
Thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
Thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Moderated alternative
Tony Hoskins wrote:
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is
not yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase,
decisions yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution
(message board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or
not it will be open to the general public or to members only. Whatever
it is, it will not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to
use).
taf
Peter Stewart just mentioned this (I was unaware it was perhaps in the
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is
not yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase,
decisions yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution
(message board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or
not it will be open to the general public or to members only. Whatever
it is, it will not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to
use).
taf
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Moderated alternative
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Do we really _deserve_ Richardson?
Yes, of course, you do. You need someone to keep you honest.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: wwwe.royalancestry.net
Do we really _deserve_ Richardson?
Yes, of course, you do. You need someone to keep you honest.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: wwwe.royalancestry.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
Tony Hoskins wrote:
Peter Stewart just mentioned this (I was unaware it was perhaps in the
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is not
yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase, decisions
yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution (message
board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or not it will
be open to the general public or to members only. Whatever it is, it will
not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to use).
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Moderated alternative
In a message dated 9/28/05 4:26:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Whatever
it is, it will not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to
use).
taf >>
It would be a shame if it were not archived in some fashion where it could be
searched by google and other engines. That is how *I* found this group.
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Whatever
it is, it will not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to
use).
taf >>
It would be a shame if it were not archived in some fashion where it could be
searched by google and other engines. That is how *I* found this group.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Moderated alternative
"You refuse to acknowledge receipt on GEN-MED and doubtless you will
continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books."
Dear Tony:
That statement is blatantly untrue. He certainly acknowledged my work
in MCA on p. 783.
Martin Hollick
continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books."
Dear Tony:
That statement is blatantly untrue. He certainly acknowledged my work
in MCA on p. 783.
Martin Hollick
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Moderated alternative
I agree with Todd, the way we have it seems to be the best, easiest
whatever. However, it also allows abuse and abuse that cannot be stopped.
Individuals can stop messages from specific individuals with killfiles, but
when the whole group is so poisoned by one who then is assisted by two, the
only effective killfile is to unsubscribe yourself, whether a Moderated
alternative is available or not. It will be a loss to gen-med if Peter
Stewart chooses to do that. We all know that physically he is not well and
then to be hounded as well, obviously, is taking its toll. He needs moral
support and by the look of things is not getting this. As they say every
country gets the government they deserve, I suppose the same will apply to
Gen-Med, what a horrifying thought----do we really _deserve_ Richardson?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
whatever. However, it also allows abuse and abuse that cannot be stopped.
Individuals can stop messages from specific individuals with killfiles, but
when the whole group is so poisoned by one who then is assisted by two, the
only effective killfile is to unsubscribe yourself, whether a Moderated
alternative is available or not. It will be a loss to gen-med if Peter
Stewart chooses to do that. We all know that physically he is not well and
then to be hounded as well, obviously, is taking its toll. He needs moral
support and by the look of things is not getting this. As they say every
country gets the government they deserve, I suppose the same will apply to
Gen-Med, what a horrifying thought----do we really _deserve_ Richardson?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
Tony Hoskins wrote:
Peter Stewart just mentioned this (I was unaware it was perhaps in the
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is not
yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase, decisions
yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution (message
board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or not it will
be open to the general public or to members only. Whatever it is, it will
not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to use).
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Moderated alternative
Blatantly untrue pertains to the person's statement that he has "a
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance." He does
acknowledge (at least) some people.
Insofar as Peter Stewart is concerned, if he treated me like he treats
Doug Richardson, I wouldn't acknowledge his existence, let alone his
help (if any was in fact given).
The bunch of you and your postings show that you all have the emotional
state of a class of 8 year olds. If SGM dies out, it won't be Doug
Richardson's fault. There will be plenty of blame for all.
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with? I've seen spatterings of
useful information, but truth be told, it's alot of sound and fury
without much substance.
Martin
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance." He does
acknowledge (at least) some people.
Insofar as Peter Stewart is concerned, if he treated me like he treats
Doug Richardson, I wouldn't acknowledge his existence, let alone his
help (if any was in fact given).
The bunch of you and your postings show that you all have the emotional
state of a class of 8 year olds. If SGM dies out, it won't be Doug
Richardson's fault. There will be plenty of blame for all.
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with? I've seen spatterings of
useful information, but truth be told, it's alot of sound and fury
without much substance.
Martin
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Moderated alternative
Richardson,
You really are a sanctimonoius charlatan.
Why don't you respond to some of the queries directed to you over the
past couple of weeks? After all they do deal with Genealogy, a subject
of which you claim some knowledge.
I've given you a couple of freebies, i.e. Echyngham and Shaa, but will
not _share_ with you various other tidbits. Why should I? You refuse to
acknowledge receipt on GEN-MED and doubtless you will continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books.
BTW dont you dare publish any of the corrections I have given you
without direct reference to who supplied it and where and when you
received it.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
You really are a sanctimonoius charlatan.
Why don't you respond to some of the queries directed to you over the
past couple of weeks? After all they do deal with Genealogy, a subject
of which you claim some knowledge.
I've given you a couple of freebies, i.e. Echyngham and Shaa, but will
not _share_ with you various other tidbits. Why should I? You refuse to
acknowledge receipt on GEN-MED and doubtless you will continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books.
BTW dont you dare publish any of the corrections I have given you
without direct reference to who supplied it and where and when you
received it.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Do we really _deserve_ Richardson?
Yes, of course, you do. You need someone to keep you honest.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: wwwe.royalancestry.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
Tony Hoskins wrote:
Peter Stewart just mentioned this (I was unaware it was perhaps in the
offing), and I wondered if someone could clue me in as to the whens,
wherefores, etc.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is not
yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase, decisions
yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution (message
board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or not it will
be open to the general public or to members only. Whatever it is, it will
not be a USENET group (the mode I find most convenient to use).
taf
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Moderated alternative
"your error ridden books"
This is a gross misrepresentation of Douglas Richardson's work. That
errors exist therein in no way qualifies a work so replete with useful
information for such disparagement.
We must not let personalities and our likes and dislikes cloud our
judgements.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
This is a gross misrepresentation of Douglas Richardson's work. That
errors exist therein in no way qualifies a work so replete with useful
information for such disparagement.
We must not let personalities and our likes and dislikes cloud our
judgements.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Moderated alternative
Dear Martin,
Just because he acknowledged you in one book, doesn't make it "blatantly
untrue".
In his Plantagenet Ancestry he thanks:
David Faris, Judith Osborn, Michael Welch of California, Barbara Wright and
his six children.
(By the way, why not his wife?) and then Maryan Egan-Baker, Warren Bitner,
Mitchell Call, Richard Hansen, Marshall Kirk, Marlyn Lewis, David Nelson,
Chris Phillips, John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts and Renia Simonds. Then a
repeat of his daughters (who produced an outstanding index) Don Stone,
Kimball G. Everingham, Warren Page and lastly Steven Peterson.
I am sure several, including Peter Stewart, have been left out.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
Just because he acknowledged you in one book, doesn't make it "blatantly
untrue".
In his Plantagenet Ancestry he thanks:
David Faris, Judith Osborn, Michael Welch of California, Barbara Wright and
his six children.
(By the way, why not his wife?) and then Maryan Egan-Baker, Warren Bitner,
Mitchell Call, Richard Hansen, Marshall Kirk, Marlyn Lewis, David Nelson,
Chris Phillips, John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts and Renia Simonds. Then a
repeat of his daughters (who produced an outstanding index) Don Stone,
Kimball G. Everingham, Warren Page and lastly Steven Peterson.
I am sure several, including Peter Stewart, have been left out.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Moderated alternative
"You refuse to acknowledge receipt on GEN-MED and doubtless you will
continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books."
Dear Tony:
That statement is blatantly untrue. He certainly acknowledged my work
in MCA on p. 783.
Martin Hollick
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Moderated alternative
Hello Tony,
I can only go on my own experience. On examining every family of which I
am familiar I have found errors. I'm not talking about petty matters
here, but totally incorrect ancestry given.
There is a reason for this. He continues to use secondary sources,
which in some cases have been shown to be unreliable on the list.
Your statement that his work is 'replete with useful information' is
totally correct. However he holds it up to be a reference work, which it
is not.
Glad to have at least stirred up some interest,
Tony Ingham
Tony Hoskins wrote:
I can only go on my own experience. On examining every family of which I
am familiar I have found errors. I'm not talking about petty matters
here, but totally incorrect ancestry given.
There is a reason for this. He continues to use secondary sources,
which in some cases have been shown to be unreliable on the list.
Your statement that his work is 'replete with useful information' is
totally correct. However he holds it up to be a reference work, which it
is not.
Glad to have at least stirred up some interest,
Tony Ingham
Tony Hoskins wrote:
"your error ridden books"
This is a gross misrepresentation of Douglas Richardson's work. That
errors exist therein in no way qualifies a work so replete with useful
information for such disparagement.
We must not let personalities and our likes and dislikes cloud our
judgements.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Moderated alternative
G'day Martin,
Thanks for that Martin. I should have said error ridden book, singular.
I haven't read either and I won't be. I relied on a friend to send me
copies of the data in RPA which I wished to check.
Tony Ingham
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Thanks for that Martin. I should have said error ridden book, singular.
I haven't read either and I won't be. I relied on a friend to send me
copies of the data in RPA which I wished to check.
Tony Ingham
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
"You refuse to acknowledge receipt on GEN-MED and doubtless you will
continue your
policy of not acknowledging (directly) assistance in any future issues
of your error ridden books."
Dear Tony:
That statement is blatantly untrue. He certainly acknowledged my work
in MCA on p. 783.
Martin Hollick
-
pj.evans
Re: Moderated alternative
mholl...@mac.com wrote:
<snip>
There have been very helpful posts, before it degenerated into several
members insulting each other and being ignored by the rest of us as
much as possible. It would be very nice if it went back to that state.
IMHO, no secondary source and no reference book is error-free, and
those who think _that's_ an attainable state are dreaming. (I speak as
one who has done QC for several years and finds errors in source
material as well as secondary material.)
If the complainers wish to write their own books, I wish they'd do so
and shut up.
<snip>
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with? I've seen spatterings of
useful information, but truth be told, it's alot of sound and fury
without much substance.
There have been very helpful posts, before it degenerated into several
members insulting each other and being ignored by the rest of us as
much as possible. It would be very nice if it went back to that state.
IMHO, no secondary source and no reference book is error-free, and
those who think _that's_ an attainable state are dreaming. (I speak as
one who has done QC for several years and finds errors in source
material as well as secondary material.)
If the complainers wish to write their own books, I wish they'd do so
and shut up.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Moderated alternative
pj.evans wrote:
I couldn't have said it better.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
If the complainers wish to write their own books, I wish they'd do so
and shut up.
I couldn't have said it better.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Moderated alternative
"pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1127963894.503713.293380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No-one has suggested that perfection can or even ought to be achieved, but
only that it should be attempted. There are voluminous discussions of errors
in CP and in Katherine Keats-Rohan's works, but few would regard them as
failures.
The "complainers" you talk about, without identifying whom you mean, are all
posters who start out trying to engage in discussion - as I did in the Alan
of Galloway matter - only to run into the toxic ego of another poster who
cannot bring himself to admit any substantial error under any circumstances.
In the past I have posted an unreserved apology to Richardson, in exactly
those words, when I thought I had wronged him. I have had no reason to do
this a second time, as no-one has ever demonstrated to me on rational
grounds that I have been unjust to the man, although this is often stated
arbitrarily, or implied archly, by him and his cronies.
The opportunity - indeed, think of it as an invitation - to substantiate the
charge is open to you if this is your opinion. For startes, please just try
to give us ONE example of a thread where I derailed an otherwise honest and
sensible discussion that Richardson was collegially engaged in....and while
you are at it, watch out for flying pigs that may drop smarmy Richardsonian
blessings on you from a great height.
Peter Stewart
news:1127963894.503713.293380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mholl...@mac.com wrote:
snip
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with? I've seen spatterings of
useful information, but truth be told, it's alot of sound and fury
without much substance.
There have been very helpful posts, before it degenerated into several
members insulting each other and being ignored by the rest of us as
much as possible. It would be very nice if it went back to that state.
IMHO, no secondary source and no reference book is error-free, and
those who think _that's_ an attainable state are dreaming. (I speak as
one who has done QC for several years and finds errors in source
material as well as secondary material.)
If the complainers wish to write their own books, I wish they'd do so
and shut up.
No-one has suggested that perfection can or even ought to be achieved, but
only that it should be attempted. There are voluminous discussions of errors
in CP and in Katherine Keats-Rohan's works, but few would regard them as
failures.
The "complainers" you talk about, without identifying whom you mean, are all
posters who start out trying to engage in discussion - as I did in the Alan
of Galloway matter - only to run into the toxic ego of another poster who
cannot bring himself to admit any substantial error under any circumstances.
In the past I have posted an unreserved apology to Richardson, in exactly
those words, when I thought I had wronged him. I have had no reason to do
this a second time, as no-one has ever demonstrated to me on rational
grounds that I have been unjust to the man, although this is often stated
arbitrarily, or implied archly, by him and his cronies.
The opportunity - indeed, think of it as an invitation - to substantiate the
charge is open to you if this is your opinion. For startes, please just try
to give us ONE example of a thread where I derailed an otherwise honest and
sensible discussion that Richardson was collegially engaged in....and while
you are at it, watch out for flying pigs that may drop smarmy Richardsonian
blessings on you from a great height.
Peter Stewart
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Moderated alternative
P.J.EVANS,
IYHO no secondary source . . . is error free!
Well Golly, how perceptive of you. The main secondary sources used by
DCR are Visitations and second-rate County Histories. These are
littered with errors and, as a consequence, so is DCR's work.
How many errors would you estimate are contained in a volume of the
Rolls Series? I'm not talking about typos. Have you seen any
manifestly incorrect entries? I think not.
Why don't you stop attempting to defend the indefensible?
Tony Ingham
pj.evans wrote:
IYHO no secondary source . . . is error free!
Well Golly, how perceptive of you. The main secondary sources used by
DCR are Visitations and second-rate County Histories. These are
littered with errors and, as a consequence, so is DCR's work.
How many errors would you estimate are contained in a volume of the
Rolls Series? I'm not talking about typos. Have you seen any
manifestly incorrect entries? I think not.
Why don't you stop attempting to defend the indefensible?
Tony Ingham
pj.evans wrote:
mholl...@mac.com wrote:
snip
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with? I've seen spatterings of
useful information, but truth be told, it's alot of sound and fury
without much substance.
There have been very helpful posts, before it degenerated into several
members insulting each other and being ignored by the rest of us as
much as possible. It would be very nice if it went back to that state.
IMHO, no secondary source and no reference book is error-free, and
those who think _that's_ an attainable state are dreaming. (I speak as
one who has done QC for several years and finds errors in source
material as well as secondary material.)
If the complainers wish to write their own books, I wish they'd do so
and shut up.
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Moderated alternative
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
On the last point, my impression is that there is a consensus that it
shouldn't be confined to members, though my preference would be for (free)
registration to be required before people can post.
On Will Johnson's point, I believe the old FMG forum was indexed on Google,
and I'm sure the new one will be too, if this goes ahead.
I'm sorry to say that this thread, and the 70-odd new posts I'm working
through, make the case for a moderated forum very well.
Chris Phillips
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is investigating the possibility.
The planning is in the early stages - I get the impression that it is
not yet in the 'how' but rather still in the 'whether or not' phase,
decisions yet to be made as to mode of moderation, mode of distribution
(message board vs. email), moderators and, most importantly, whether or
not it will be open to the general public or to members only.
On the last point, my impression is that there is a consensus that it
shouldn't be confined to members, though my preference would be for (free)
registration to be required before people can post.
On Will Johnson's point, I believe the old FMG forum was indexed on Google,
and I'm sure the new one will be too, if this goes ahead.
I'm sorry to say that this thread, and the 70-odd new posts I'm working
through, make the case for a moderated forum very well.
Chris Phillips
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Moderated alternative
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Yes, it was. In its earliest days there were still heated debates
(about Ragnar Lothbrok for example, which sort of kick-started things)
but these were not, for the most part, personal, and there were also
significant collaborative breakthroughs (for example, in determining the
authentic royal descents of Sancha de Ayala) and a willingness to post
detailed analyses of complex issues. Unfortunately, the group seems to
have slowly accumulated participants who had additional agendas
(creating discord for its own sake, obsessive partisanship, or
harvesting data for personal publication), and at the same time several
of the more prolific on-topic posters have either left the group, scaled
back their participation, or taken their more interesting dialog
off-list (in some cases as a direct result of the growing abuses, in
others just due to the vissicitudes of life).
taf
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with?
Yes, it was. In its earliest days there were still heated debates
(about Ragnar Lothbrok for example, which sort of kick-started things)
but these were not, for the most part, personal, and there were also
significant collaborative breakthroughs (for example, in determining the
authentic royal descents of Sancha de Ayala) and a willingness to post
detailed analyses of complex issues. Unfortunately, the group seems to
have slowly accumulated participants who had additional agendas
(creating discord for its own sake, obsessive partisanship, or
harvesting data for personal publication), and at the same time several
of the more prolific on-topic posters have either left the group, scaled
back their participation, or taken their more interesting dialog
off-list (in some cases as a direct result of the growing abuses, in
others just due to the vissicitudes of life).
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: Moderated alternative
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I think it is still decent-bordering-on-good a lot of the time. My
theory is that with the explosion of available primary documents via
PROCat and A2A, people are finding stuff they wish to take directly
into print (thus bypassing the need to ask questions and feel stuff out
[collaborate] on the Internet). Just my two cents' ...
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
And BTW, was SGM ever good to begin with?
Yes, it was. In its earliest days there were still heated debates
(about Ragnar Lothbrok for example, which sort of kick-started things)
but these were not, for the most part, personal, and there were also
significant collaborative breakthroughs (for example, in determining the
authentic royal descents of Sancha de Ayala)
I think it is still decent-bordering-on-good a lot of the time. My
theory is that with the explosion of available primary documents via
PROCat and A2A, people are finding stuff they wish to take directly
into print (thus bypassing the need to ask questions and feel stuff out
[collaborate] on the Internet). Just my two cents' ...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Moderated Alternative
Any public forum goes through a life cycle.
People know exactly what others think and are less interested in them.
The novelty of the new technology wears off.
People are tired of seeing and answering the same old questions for the
hundredth time.
People resolve their own lines to Mediaeval Ancestors and drop out
voluntarily -- no longer interested.
People post less substance because they realize they are getting ripped
off.
Natural Process.
Nothing to get alarmed and whine about.
DSH
People know exactly what others think and are less interested in them.
The novelty of the new technology wears off.
People are tired of seeing and answering the same old questions for the
hundredth time.
People resolve their own lines to Mediaeval Ancestors and drop out
voluntarily -- no longer interested.
People post less substance because they realize they are getting ripped
off.
Natural Process.
Nothing to get alarmed and whine about.
DSH
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Moderated Alternative
Spencer Hines wrote:
I think more people come here - and certainly more of them stay a while
- from an interest in the subject rather than in the personalities.
Yes, and we see posters referred to the archive often enough. But
useful sidelights or even new information can come from 101st
discussions, occasionally.
Gordon Hale was a notable loss from finishing his work, though he has
dropped in once or twice since then.
I understood your view was that the main culprit had reformed. Is there
at least one rip-off merchant still at work here? Can you identify him,
her - or them?
Peter Stewart
Any public forum goes through a life cycle.
People know exactly what others think and are less interested in them.
I think more people come here - and certainly more of them stay a while
- from an interest in the subject rather than in the personalities.
The novelty of the new technology wears off.
People are tired of seeing and answering the same old questions for the
hundredth time.
Yes, and we see posters referred to the archive often enough. But
useful sidelights or even new information can come from 101st
discussions, occasionally.
People resolve their own lines to Mediaeval Ancestors and drop out
voluntarily -- no longer interested.
Gordon Hale was a notable loss from finishing his work, though he has
dropped in once or twice since then.
People post less substance because they realize they are getting
ripped off.
I understood your view was that the main culprit had reformed. Is there
at least one rip-off merchant still at work here? Can you identify him,
her - or them?
Peter Stewart