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. 0220.  Saturday, 16 March 1996.

(1)     From:   Philip Spagnolo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 09:12:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: About This List

(2)     From:   Joanne Woolway <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:52:56 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: This list


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Spagnolo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 09:12:45 -0500
Subject:        Re: About This List

>Also, how do we choose to define "excessive discussion on a topic?" Number of
>posts? What if the discussion is ground-breaking? Or just interesting? Who
>decides? Or, will it be decided which topics merit longer discussions?
>
>Is no one else trouble by what that implies?

I totally agree that the list is being berated unfairly by the academic elite.
I  have subscribed to the list only recently and I am immediately faced with
talk of a separate group which will sustain only a select group of people.
What kind of talk is this?  As an undergraduate student I feel I am being
backed into a corner and told to mind my manners while the adults discuss the
harmony of the spheres.  I certainly am not a person "fishing" for term paper
ideas.  My research is done independently, thank you.  But I also realize that
some subjects require the help of others more experienced in the field.  Should
people be ostracized in asking for bibliographic information?

Having a person determine the worthiness of a discussion is sick.  It
undermines the whole basis of a list designed to serve people showing a genuine
interest in the subject.  Coincidentally, I belong to many mailing lists and
I've never found such mutinous behaviour anywhere.  Censorship is just another
means of control; and I don't think subscribers would feel comfortable with a
list that controls their direction of thought.

Philip J. Spagnolo

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joanne Woolway <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Mar 1996 16:52:56 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Re: This list

Has anyone considered the practical results of starting a new Shakespeare list?

If even a few regular contributors make it clear that they do not wish to
subscribe to the new list, then the unwillingness of other participants to miss
out on a good discussion on SHAKSPER will probably mean that few will
unsubscribe themselves from SHAKSPER and be content to be only in on the
"higher level" discussion of the new list.

If, therefore, most people subscribe to both lists then all of their inboxes
will be full of exactly the same postings as they would otherwise have had, but
some with one list heading, some with others. Hardly a valuable change.

It seems that the only way that this scheme can work is by luring away all of
the "serious" academics from SHAKSPER and ensuring that no quality discussion
happens here any more. This would, in effect, be to destroy this list. I have
no wish to support a new list which would (I have to hope unintentionally)
effect this destruction. It hardly seems a fitting response to the work put in
by Hardy Cook and others and it also seems practically ill-conceived.

Joanne Woolway
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.