Someone on the list (Stan Blum?) wrote:
 
"Unfortunately we can't determine which "signoffs" are from people
who looked and didn't like, and which are from serious,
knowledgeable, museum professionals who are just too busy to sift
through the 100+ irrelevant messages a week."
 
Maybe we can ask those who want to sign off to give some sort of reason?  Too
much to ask for?
 
 
"To be blunt, the amount of garbage on this list keeps it
from reaching its full potential as a vehicle for keeping the
museum community informed and sharing solutions to common
problems".
 
In the ideal world, this would be the case.  But when reality sets in, we find
that not everyone is interested in the same subject, and one persons garbage is
another persons information.  Even when we are talking about messages where the
contents are nothing but idle comment (joking included), it still
expresses opinion, and is valid (to some degree) to the discussion.  Monitoring
the list  in any form is nothing but censorship.  Whether we like it or not, the
free flow of expression is alive on this listserv, and I hope it continues, even
when I myself get overwhelmed by the enormity of my mail, I plan to read and
delete with the satisfaction that I have the power to do so, and am not just
reading messages that someone else thought fit to be read.  Nuff said.
 
Yes, I am complaining, but am I wrong?  Moreover, I'm not
complaining so much for myself (I'm still here) as I am for the
people who gave up without saying why.
 
People choose to quit the list.  Thats their problem.
 
I think it's time to consider some alternatives.  General
admonitions to the readership aren't likely to fix the problem,
and there's got to be a better way.
 
How about two lists:  one a "museum-chat-list" where folks could
blather away, and the other a "museum-serious-list" with a
predominantly more substantive content.
 
But you see, as the discussion evolves, it turns from serious, to commentary, to
something entirely different...maybe a new idea, or question which has sprung up
from the previous discussion.  We can all learn from it, or choose to ignore it
through deleting before reading.  Personally, I would rather keep that
priveledge, and vote "No Moderator"
 
Sincerely,
Allison Smith
[log in to unmask]
 
 
  There are 6,000 people subscribed to this list.  It takes
  the average person 10 seconds to: 1) open a piece of mail,
  2) determe that it's junk, and 3) delete it. Your bonehead
  message just cost the community 60,000 seconds -- that's 1,000
  minutes, or 16.7 hours.
 
    Have a nice day, moron.
 
 
Too radical?
 
Stan Blum
[log in to unmask]
 
p.s. Stan, if you didn't write all that garbage, and only wrote the part about
the 6,000 people, pardon me.  And to the person who wrote what I call "garbage",
sorry, I don't mean to "flame" you, I guess I just strongly disagree.
Allison Smith