I know, I know, I can almost hear the groans around the world. A Busy
Museum Professional should know better than to revive the agony after
nearly a week. But Mary Mancuso's complaint about my 77-line (gasp!)
e-mail deserves a response. Those who don't want to read it can ignore
it--as usual. If it helps, I'll avoid tedious anecdotes. I'm sorry the
length of the first message discouraged careful reading by Busy
Professionals (I eschew the usual insult about short attention spans),
but MM jumped to unwarranted conclusions. I was trying to be helpful,
despite any unfortunate barbs, and it was just MHO. It got long when I
tried to explain it analytically, rather than simply to add a pointless
"me-too" to a prior message, as if we were voting.

Complaints about message length are cheap shots. Brevity is a boon, but
Busy Museum Professionals don't always have time to be concise! Many
Museum-L messages exceed 77 lines--some running to several hundred. My
mail log proves that 77 lines is not unusual for Museum-L.

I protest MM's distorted view of my position as promoting "censorship."
This is absurd: I can't censor anything. Although I said a moderator--on
a moderated listserv--might think the housing issue inappropriate,
usually moderators merely issue cautions: a member might commit many
transgressions before being cut off. I would be a very laissez-faire
listserv moderator, I assure you. I forgot that in some places, the word
"inappropriate" precedes book-burning. I entered a discussion already in
progress, not to chastise the apartment-seeker. I hoped to add clarity
to an emotional, muddled argument: several people said objections to the
apartment-seeking ad were unkind or elitist. I saw nothing distinctive
about a museum professional's lifestyle that would make Museum-L a
logical forum for apartment-hunting and questioned the expectation that
Museum-L folks COULD help a stranger, even a colleague, in this quest.
How do a Busy Museum Professional's needs differ from the general
public's? (Sounds like an elitist attitude itself!) Why would using a
listserv of 1500 members worldwide be a good way to find a Manhattan
apartment? MM may be right that there are more New Yorkers on the list
than I think (how many do you think I think there are?), but is it more
than a few hundred? The story about my pushy friend may have been
overkill, but it was an extreme example of imposing on someone for
favors on the wobbly excuse of a common interest, but with no connection
to the favor.

Mary M., I know we're all grown-up (!), and I'm happy to let list
members "decide on their own whether they care to read something or not
(or to help someone or not)." So why can't I discuss the practicality of
the method? You don't need to read my posts--but if you criticize my
message, read carefully and don't twist its meaning. I oppose
censorship, with or without quotation marks; I don't and can't censor
anyone. The bottom line for me is pragmatic--excessive irrelevant
messages undermine the value of a specialized listserv. Museum-L has
been notorious for irrelevant posts (less so now). I have several
colleagues who quit because of the high volume and lack of focus. I
apologize to all for this message, but I think listservs need periodic
re-evaluation in order to be effective tools for members.

I still want to know how a Busy Museum Professional's housing needs are
unique (some people have special requirements--a rock musician may need
soundproofing and/or tolerant, distant neighbors). And I ask how an
e-mail to a few hundred people in a particular city, who share your
profession but aren't in the housing business, can be an effective
strategy for finding an apartment? I hope the apartment-seeker reports
the results of the Museum-L appeal, to confirm or counter my
assumptions. Arlyn, thanks for your calm, reasoned support. I again
apologize for extending the argument, but I thought MM's response came
closer to the spirit of censorship than anything I said. My current
practice is: ignore irrelevant e-mails--even long commercial spams don't
bother me; avoid correcting spelling and grammar (potentially a
full-time job!); and try to be helpful. The original aprtment-seeking
message didn't bother me. But when people began debating it, I thought I
could contribute without fear of reprisal. MM objects to long
messages, whereas an excessive NUMBER bothers me more. E-mail can be a
blessing and a curse, and we need to be tolerant. I seek not to bash any
e-mailer, but to discuss issues, including the purposes and practical
use of the listserv. Members can ignore and delete the occasional
unwelcome or off-target message--complaints only clutter everyone's
mailbox. --David Haberstich