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

Infrequent Posters: Reply to WF



     Earlier I expressed my opinion about wishing there was less off-topic posting.  I want to clarify that I do not condone Rich T.'s barrage of "punishment email" to correct the problem.  When someone says "You're not allowed to do that", it just makes me want to do it even more.  [I'm still trying to find a bumper sticker that says "Question Authority".]

WFang wrote:
>I read your post and understand your point of view. What YOU want is for
>people to supply you with information that you can use. That's great.
>However, what are YOU giving???  ...While I'm sure your intentions are good, what YOU >want to do is "take".

     I don't deny that I've asked questions and hoped for answers.  If I can supply information when a request is made, I gladly do.  When the topic came up a while back about Tommy at the Universal Ampitheatre in LA in '89 or John playing with Pete at one of the California Psychoderelict shows, I was one of the few who were able to contribute first-hand knowledge.  Sure, I've been to tons of their concerts and I've got virtually all officially released albums, but I want to provide something unique.  If someone else beats me to the punch with better information, I'm not going to add "me too".

>How many questions of the same type and nature can you answer over and over and
over again without OTHER conversations to keep your interest???  

     There is so much new information to talk about right now!  We don’t have to continue to rehash old subjects that most of us know from reading the available books.  It’s not that often that we discuss subjects that would normally be in a FAQ.  There are solo tours, a reunion, official remasters, boots, an interactive CD, TV specials, interviews, etc. that I can’t remember when the list had more interesting topics available.  I thrive on posts where someone has specific knowledge that you can't get in the available media (newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, etc.).  And when I see a posting from a news source that's something I have missed, I really enjoy reading it.

>Unless YOU are willing to spend the time to make this list more interesting,
>than your opinion, while noted, doesn't mean anything.
>You haven't influenced my life. You haven't said anything that's caught my attention.

     Please tell me what you think I should be doing differently.  Exactly what is it that you want me to contribute?  I’m serious, and please be specific.  I’ve given my opinion on the future of this list and I beg to differ about catching your attention.  This is your pat answer to infrequent posters and it doesn’t wash.

     I’ve chosen to post comments to several people on this list in private email.  That’s my style and I don’t feel like wasting everyone’s time by responding to particulars that others may not find interesting.  You and I have different ideas about the necessity of sharing your Who and non-Who opinions with everyone else on the list.

>Spend quality time and effort posting useful info to make the list "better"

     I am trying to make the list better by suggesting that there may be alternative venues for extended discussions of off-topic issues.  I do wish there were a "side-channel" that members could switch to when the need arises.  There is no doubt that you post useful information about the Who, but there is a lot that you produce that I consider very unnecessary.

     I guess I’m in the minority about the desires of people on this list.  I thought the majority would have appreciated a little refocusing on our common interest, but maybe the desire is to simply let it be as wide-open as possible.  Although I don’t want to, I suppose I will have to screen some of the posts.

Tim Herrlinger