[Lowfer] New List

[Larry Putman]

John,

I agree with you!

With our current Web board you always know your message has been posted.
The web board is very widely used! Why make another place to post and read
when we have a working system now?

I was subscribing to 5 separate list that related a scanner that I have. I
got so fed up
having to go to so many list that I stopped reading any of them!

Yes the qth list has some problems, I am sure they will be fixed!
The Web board works so we don't need another one.

Just my .$.02

Larry WB3ANQ



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Davis" <longwave@mindspring.com>
To: <lowfer@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] New List


> >
> >Since I like to receive everything by mail and not web sites, I created a
> >mail list on YAHOO called Lowfer_Notice. It is my experience, from the
> other
> >groups I run there, that it is easy to use and, more importantly, very
> >reliable and FAST.
> >
> >I would like to it to be a list where beacon owners can post all the
> changes
> >to their operation that we, the listeners, need to be aware of.
> >Additionally, I would encourage reports of band openings, contacts, etc.
We
> >can leave all the tech talk where it is  8-)
> >
> >I don't want to discount, or undercut, the excellent work done by John,
Les
> >and the others. I would suggest that you continue to use those forums.
But
> >if you want to send or receive beacon info or band reports via e-mail
> >without waiting 48 hours, you are welcome to use the group. Or not.
>
>
> WHAT 48 hours?  That's the beauty of a Web board...it's immediate, you
> receive confirmation that your message is there, and it's available to
> anyone for a month or more, even if they are newcomers or their own ISP's
> mail server was down for a while or any of the scores of other reasons
> e-mail doesn't always get through.
>
> I realize that a lot of people share your preference for "everything by
> e-mail," Mike, even though I don't understand it myself.  But deep down, I
> feel your proposal does amount to an invitation to abandon this current
> list.  Although there is some non-beacon LF technical discussion here from
> time to time, most of the posting to this list is about techniques for
> transmission and reception of the very beacon changes that are being
posted
> here too.  These are almost inseparable.
>
> Seems to me the hobby is already fragmenting into way too many niche
e-mail
> groups.  Les and I have to monitor about as many as we can handle now, and
I
> have to believe that's probably true of a lot of other members whose
> interests extend beyond a single area of longwave.
>
> How many more lists should we have to follow, when each new beacon-related
> idea that comes along diverts people's attention from simple things like
> remembering to inform the publicly available master lists of their
changes?
> (This point is kind of a sore one with me, as just such a situation arose
> this fall shortly before I could introduce a system that would've allowed
> automatic updating of the LWCA web and print lists by beacon operators
> themselves, ALONG WITH automatic posting to the LW Message Board and this
or
> any other list if we got its moderator's permission.  I won't have time to
> work on it again until next fall now, by which time...who knows?  Maybe
> there'll be separate mail lists for each mode of operation?)
>
> It seems to me that if niches are the way the hobby is developing, we
still
> at least need a central "gathering place" where people can meet and find
out
> what and where those niches currently are, and maybe view a sample of
what's
> going on in them.  This is a concept I call "rolling digests," where
readers
> could view the last few days' postings to a variety of lists--although
they
> couldn't post, of course, unless they subscribed to them individually.
This
> would be a relatively simple matter with list owners' cooperation, with
> their lists still hosted right where they are now; and that's just one of
> MANY ways we could be making more use of the LWCA server, if we weren't
such
> a collection of stoic individualists, and/or taking the quick fix and
> jumping ship for what is fundamentally a temporary problem.  (Majordomo
took
> a while to get going, too, remember.)
>
> There is perhaps a little incongruity in my defending this very list, a
> quasi-competitor to the LW Message Board, but the users of both finally
> found an equilibrium that worked.  Now do we have to find a new
equilibrium
> point again?  Do we abandon this list, or have to accept yet more
> fragmentation of our information sources?
>
> Well, that's all my venting for today.  Thoughts, please?
>
> John Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Lowfer@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
>