Re: In Defense (w/ minimal Who content) (fwd)

[WFang01@aol.com]

Brad, re:

>This list is analogous to getting a magazine or newspaper. 

I have to disagree with that. The above you pay for and has (hopefully) a
specific non-interactive purpose or theme. While this does too (to a point),
it's free and it's basically "run" by us, the subscribers and we participate,
control the content, direction, etc.  

> I'd be pissed off if I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and couldn't
find the financial news because it was buried among all the other irrelevant
crap. 

Irrelevant? Like the ads? I still manage to weed right past the articles I
don't want to read, ignore the ads (that I don't like) and still enjoy the
content. For example, I have a subscription to Automobile. I generally only
read the articles on BMWs & Mercedes, scan for things I have a minor interest
in and ignore the rest. It works real well...

>> I'd be kind of pissed off if I subscribed to a Who Newletter and found
half of the magazine didn't have a damn thing to do with the Who. 

That would only matter to me if Who information was deleted as a result of
lack of space due to non-Who information. I find myself quite capable of
selective reading and reasoning...

>> Wanting them to be more specific to their raison d'etre (had to fit that
phrase in here somehow!) isn't censorship.

No, that's not censorship. However, sending e-mails to people telling them
what not to say, is.

>And sure I can just read the headlines and ignore the non-Who articles, but
it still makes it a bad newsletter.  Or at least a different newsletter than
I would expect.

Remember, this isn't a "newsletter", it's interactive. People aren't just
posting information, they're discussing things, asking questions and getting
answers. I'm a lot more interested in other people's interests, lifestyles,
etc. than just "Who talk", which quite frankly can be boring if not tempered
with humor and HUMAN interaction...

>>This is only my 3rd or 4th mailing list I've been on.  The others have all
had a pretty firm rule that postings should have something to with the stated
purpose of the list.  This one doesn't seem to have that. As far as I can
tell, this list is completely unmoderated in any significant way.

Do we really need rules??? We've had flame wars, fights, etc (believe it or
not, I've even been involved in "some" of them) and survived. It's better
that people work out their own frustrations, than have someone else "stop"
them midstream... AND, the other problem is this.... RULES = ENFORCEMENT OF
SAME. Who becomes police officer? And do you really want YOUR fate in his/her
hands? Once you have rules, you better believe the minions will yell "FOUL"
immediately and often. Do you want to then have to "explain" why you wrote
what you did and convince someone that it IS "on-topic"??? For years PRODIGY
had a BBS system that was run with no rhyme or reason. Harmless posts would
be rejected because the censor didn't understand them or, the following week,
everyone figured how to "beat the censor" and get <Picard> posted, only to be
followed by mass deletions a week later. After many years of this and losing
MANY customers (at one point the whole ball game was theirs), they basically
gave up. If you tell me how this will successfully work and WHO will enforce
it, I'll tell you why it won't work. Personally, I think we're all capable of
policing ourselves...

>>but it doesn't make someone a total ignorant nazi asshole for wanting stuff
to be on subject.

That alone, no. However, e-mailing people trying to assert your will over
theirs, is. 

>> I never got any official e-mail saying one way or the other if posts
should be kept on topic, so why would someone assume it's a totally
freewheeling list with no holds barred rather than a forum exclusively for
the Who?

Defacto reasoning. One doesn't have to assume anything that one can see right
in front of them. 

>>I started off hating all the stupid tangents.  I've gotten used to the
style, and I like it now, but I don't see where Rich deserves cartloads of
abuse.

Personally, I don't think he's being "abused". He's actually getting a
"fairer" chance than what he gave the people that he e-mailed. Nobody's
stopping him from posting his point of view, which I would like to see him
express. Perhaps he has a valid opinion that will sway my point of view.
However, so far he's only demonstrated that he wants to tell other list
members what to do, and they are relieving their frustration of the same...

>>Also, what's ICE?  I thought it was a "I Can't Explain" abbreviation, but
that doesn't seem to fit.

It used to be called International CD Exchange (a magazine---too many
different topics--you may not like it! :) ) But, like the Oakland A's, who
used to be the ATHLETICS (perhaps still are...), the abbr. just stuck...

>>It's not never ending.  I'm a member on the Queen list, and there's a very
distinct line about what's legit and what ain't.  It's not run by a bunch of
nazi pigs either.

I can't say since I'm not a member, nor have any interest in them at all
beyond Roger's "I Want It All". However, perhaps they have that rare
individual(s) who wants to spend the time being a policeman and does a good
job of it. And, that's just giving the unknown person the benefit of the
doubt... Personally, I don't think it's necessary to "hide" behind a
policeman when no "crime" has been committed... 

>> I would think the final arbitor would either be a moderator, or failing
that some kind of consensus from the members of the list.

OK, supposed **I** was the "moderator" (guiney pig answer). I'm sure a few
people who are uncomfortable with my style would have a REAL problem with
that since our personalities clash. I already don't want you to be my monitor
as I can see we're far apart on how we view this "situation".

As it is some people don't want to "fight" with me for many reasons (some
good, some bad). I make a call that they don't like and what's the point? Ask
the list? Out of approximately 350 people that are on it, how many post?
50??? Do we really need to go through the time and effort each time there's a
"problem"? And who wants to waste their time with that???

Here's what I think about the list...  It's OK just the way it is. Could it
be better? Perhaps. But better to me, may mean something completely different
to you or someone else. I would be happier if people were offering their rare
Who records on here, cheap! That would make my day. However, to make the list
change, is really up to the listers. If more people participated and
discussed The Who, that would be the direction the list would take. However,
if the list is dominated by a few people WILLING to post their knowledge, etc
and everyone else doesn't want to post for their own reasons, then they are
the ones who should be satisfied with what the list is. When you decide to
particiapte and post, then you are actually moving the direction and content
of the list. In lew of that, you're just telling the people who ARE posting,
what not to post.

People don't seem to understand when I say that I'm not interested in certain
opinions from non-posters who just happen to "spring up". For the most part,
I'm giving up my free time to supply people with information about The Who
that they wouldn't necessarily get elsewhere. Do I need to do this? No. Am I
happy to do this? Sometimes. (more yes than no) Unless the complaining person
is willing to share the burden, I really don't need their opinion telling me
or others what to say or not to say, because the end result will be, I'll say
what I want, or won't say anything. While I'm sure that statement put a smile
on a few faces, I'm also sure that most of our other "heavy posters" feel the
same way. Without the few of us, what you'd probably end up with, is
something that looks like the alt.music.who bbs. Not a pleasant thought... 

No rules, no censorship, no controls, just people who want to talk. I think
that's OK...

-wf