Print

Print


>> a self initiated audit 

is a great idea!

I've often wondered how many of the 148 on the list actually pay any attention to the list. (I happened to notice that one member on the list died in 2008, and yet his address returns no error messages.)

As for a command to the listserv to divulge the list members, that may have been possible some years ago. It's an open list, and one's emails are not considered private. However, in this day and age, I am certain that some list members would consider a public list of their emails an invasion of privacy.




On Jul 31, 2013, at 12:23 AM, P wrote:

> Sounds like a much too intelligent idea, so I'm in. Can't do it right now, but soon.
> Peter M.
> 
> Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hey folks
>> 
>> would a self initiated audit be useful? That is everyone sends in a 
>> statement of who is on line.
>> 
>> ie  maybe just an avatar
>> or an email address .....
>> depending on how much you want to divulge
>> or more
>> say
>> Peter Dillane, Melbourne Australia, amateur interest, undergraduate degree 
>> with majors in Eng Lit and Language; Thesis on Marlowe; specific Eliot 
>> interest - general; favourite single malt ....etc etc
>> 
>> Cheers Pete
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: The TSE list and "critical mass"
>> 
>> 
>>> I used to send a command to the listserver once in a while to get the 
>>> number
>>> of list subscribers. A few years ago I started getting messages saying 
>>> that
>>> I was not authorized to use the command.  The number has been pretty 
>>> steady
>>> at about 250 members since I joined the list until I was denied access to
>>> the information.  Maybe it was at the end of last year that Peter M. was
>>> having some trouble with the list. He sent a command and as a side-effect 
>>> he
>>> got the number of members sent back.  I remember him writing that the 
>>> number
>>> was about 200.
>>> 
>>> The number of list members would have almost no effect on Missouri's
>>> resources. The number of bytes being stored would (number of posts, sizes 
>>> of
>>> the posts, attachments.)
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Rick Parker
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:58:35 -0400, Ken Armstrong
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/30/2013 7:09 AM, Tom Colket wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> A discussion list has to have a critical mass of subscribers or it
>>>>> dies. For many years there was just such a critical mass on the TSE
>>>>> list. Someone would start a topic and others would pick it up and add
>>>>> things (and it wasn't always the exact same people, taking predictable
>>>>> "sides"). But in recent years the erosion of subscribers has became
>>>>> startling. We are now well below critical mass.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Interesting. Are the actual figures available? I believe in the not
>>>> too distant past Tim M has referred to restrictions on resources, both
>>>> virtual and financial, and has asked for listers to make their
>>>> preferences known to MO powers that be. I'm guessing that that hasn't
>>>> much happened.
>>>> 
>>>> Ken A
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>