[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On on/off topic



Litgo@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Brad, re:
> 
> >Sure, but if you had your druthers, wouldn't you want to remove the
> >ads?  Every reader recognizes that the ads are a necessary evil.  If
> >there was a reasonable way to get rid of them, wouldn't you?
> [snip]
> >To sum up my main points:
> >1) Rich's idea of what consitutes a good list is different that the
> >way this list works, but it isn't nuts, it's a perfectly workable
> >alternate style.
> >2) The official description of this group makes a newcomer expect
> >something more content restricted.
> >
> >Therefore:
> >The official description should be changed?
> 
> Do we really have to be so pedantic about this? A better description than a
> newsletter is to consider this forum a running conversation. If we were all
> sitting in a bar (those of us of age or with good IDs) we would not have a
> moderator guiding us along in the direction of our conversation, and, most
> definitely, we would constantly stray "off topic."
> 
> If you'll notice, most (not all) of the tangents were begun as just that:
> tangents -- from a who or who-related conversation. The basis of this group
> is the Who. But the Who and discussions thereof can lead to many different
> subjects. If all the messages on here were "hey, I heard John Entwhistle and
> Roger Daltry are playing in Snyde Park -- anyone know where that is???," I,
> for one, and I would guess, most others, would not spend their time, energy
> and internet subscription money here for more than a week.
> 
> Now, I'll admit, I could not care less about Star Trek. But does that stop me
> from having a meaningful discussion about Pete's amplification system (which
> has been accused of being 'un-who-related'? I can certainly use my sense of
> judgement to skip over the Star Trek discussions, if I so desire. I think
> others can do the same. Those on the digest, all you have to do is scroll
> when you see something that doesn't interest you.
> 
> As was so eloquently put by WFang, this forum is what we make it. If the
> constant participants (this purported middle 50 or so constant posters) are
> left to their ways, we are certainly going to stray on tangents. We can't
> discuss endlessly the same topics over and over again just for the sake of a
> few occasional posters who haven't anything to add, who-related or otherwise.
> 
> For those of you who feel this forum is heading in the wrong direction, it's
> up to you to guide it's change toward the type of forum you want it to be.
> Invoking a pious attitude about others' contribitutions and calling for
> "den-mother" moderation will only lead to more off-topic posts, such as this
> thread, and, IMO, a considerably less compelling forum in which to discuss
> the who, let alone anything else.
> 
> Litgo


LITGO:

I am impressed!!!! Very well stated, and right on the money....I could 
not agree with you more (especially on the point about not being able to 
care less about Star Trek!!!!)

" Come on now Simon, POCO is a fucking great band!!!!!!" PT, Tower 
theatre, PD tour 1993 after introducing Simon Phillips as the newest 
member of POCO.