Print

Print


Much ado.

I was told a story once (supposedly true) of an architect who was drawing up
plans for a university quadrangle. After construction, when they began
landscaping it was discovered there were no plans for sidewalks. When the
architect was contacted regarding this apparent oversight, he replied that
this was intentional; he wanted to allow students to begin using the
facilities so he could see where they naturally began creating pathways and
use these for determining where to place sidewalks. Thus the new facility
ended up with walks where they were actually most useful, rather than where
someone "thought" they should be.

 

I would suggest that we should learn from this tale and suggest we simply
utilize the forms of communication which people are naturally migrating
towards for 'official' dissemination of information. Otherwise this will
quickly become ridiculous.

 

Eringlin

 

I really don't give a crap about how long anyone has been online, but I've
never understood the rationale behind posting at the bottom of an email on a
discussion list. It makes anyone reading it have to scroll all the way down
to see what you've written (as anyone following the thread has almost
certainly already read the previous content). It has always struck me as
counterintuitive and backward. I only know of a handful of "bottom feeders",
thankfully, but it is pet peeve of mine. (  ;]  sorry, Hrothgar!)

 

 

From: Patrick Anderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] New "Calontir News" mailing list.

 

In 20+ years of being online, I have found that the concept that information
should be freely available and widely distributed is a Good Thing. 

 

Hence, I have found that having a group posting to a group is also a good
thing. If people don't want to read it, they can hit delete. And since the
Yahoo group is going to be not a discussion group, but merely a dispenser of
information group, there's no concern about debate on that group.

 

Furthermore, having said that, the concept of official distribution of
information over only an official list versus official information
distributed over unofficial lists is really a pointless discussion. I have,
in my many offices (since we're using chronology to explain experience) sent
information ex officio (or ex cathedra) out to unofficial lists all the
time. There's no real reason for an "official" source of news when we have a
bunch of "unofficial" ones where official people can distribute information
officially. All a separate group does it make it harder for new people and
experienced people to find official information.

 

And sorry, Hrothgar, I'm still a top-poster.

 

Gabriel

 

 

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Sakurai no Jirou Takeo wrote:

Maybe not everyone here is interested in receiving the information from the
news group?  Not everyone who is on the BFS_NEWS list in on the BFS
Discussion Group and vice versa.  The same thing should apply to here.  Now
the more vocal here will be all for it I am sure, but it is better group
form not to have groups within groups for messaging.  I've been on ones that
have done that in the past and it just gets all mangled up to the point that
people stop using them.  At least, that's been my experience over the last
20+ years of being online.

 

 

Sakurai no Jirou Takeo (aka Jeremiah Jennings)

Kingdom of Calontir

Barony of Forgotten Sea

Canton of Aston Tor

Champagne Players

Argent, a torii gate gules and on a chief wavy sable three cherry blossoms
argent

 

--

Patrick Anderson

[log in to unmask]

"No matter how much you feed the wolf,

he keeps looking at the forest." --Ilse Lehiste