Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: March ::
Re: About This List
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0170. Wednesday, 6 March 1996.

(1)     From:   Robert Teeter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 12:17:43 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List

(2)     From:   Gerald Morgan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 13:09:06 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0164  About This List

(3)     From:   Michael Saenger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 17:09:18 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Two mailing lists (of Verona?)


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Teeter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 12:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 7.0165 Re: About This List
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0165 Re: About This List

I am one of those non-academic Shakespeareans who appreciates the chance to
hear serious discussion of the subject.  However, I would not like to see the
list split.

There are two keys I use to avoid clutter -- the delete key and the reply key.
Because Hardy Cook so carefully combines related messages, I can easily delete
what I'm not interested in.  When I want to make a comment of limited interest
to the whole group, I can reply to the author by private e-mail.

There is yet another way to avoid clutter on the list.  Those who want to chat
or discuss issues not covered by this list can always go to the newsgroup:

        humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

All of this should be sufficient to keep "clutter" to a minimum. This list has
a good signal-to-noise ratio as it is, thanks in large part to the fine work
done by Hardy Cook.  Hardy doesn't need to add policing duties.

Robert Teeter

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gerald Morgan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Mar 1996 13:09:06 -0800
Subject: 7.0164  About This List
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0164  About This List

I hope you will reconsider your suggestion of splitting the electronic
conference in two.  I for one have been a grateful spectator of "high-level"
submissions, and as a relative novice I'm afraid I'd fall into the second tier
of participants.  Personally, I feel like anyone who has taken the time to
subscribe should have opportunity for full participation. Perhaps an agreeable
screening policy (cooperative censorship?) would be acceptable to the group in
its entirety, and thus leave the forum open AND focused.  Additionally,
"careless and incorrect postings" are inevitable in any open discussion, and
should be met with response rather than withdrawal.  These "valuable
contributors" should hold true to this spirit.

Gerry Morgan, Office of the Provost
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1258

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Saenger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 17:09:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Two mailing lists (of Verona?)

Dear Timothy,

I appreciated your letter, in which I found nothing offensive.  The list at
present does serve some very important functions, especially referring people
to secondary material, which are very useful.  But I argue it could do far
more.  You seem to argue that the winnowing fan is in each recipient's hands,
and the chaff get a "D" based on their subject heading.  Yes, this is what I do
and many others.  But wouldn't it be interesting to have a coherent, high-level
discussion?  Professors from different institutions could comment on each
other's articles and clarify their positions.  The only way to entice these
professors onto the net is to assure them of a vetted discussion.  The list as
we know it is very valuable and should continue as it is.  The different lists
would serve different purposes.  Think of it this way; what we currently have
is like a "Shakespeare cafe" with all different sorts of people.  What I am
proposing would be something separate from this, like a panel discussion with
an open audience.  Would some people disagree with who should speak? Of course,
but anarchy is not freedom, it is merely the rule of the loudest.

What we currently have is, of course, not anarchy.  Hardy has been doing a fine
job of running the show (and I doubt he is paid for this). Whether he would be
willing to take on this task, and the inevitable flak that would thrown his way
from disappointed submitters is a question only he can answer.  But just think
about it.  If one major scholar got on a high-level list, his or her rivals
would almost have to respond.  This dialogue would educate us all.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Saenger
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.