[Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?

[billg]

My little weak suggestion:  Try it for a short while, see if everything is
going to be o.k., but don't forget this group here.

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone who has no idea what a CoCo is
being able to interject his own opinions about what a "piece of junk" it is
or being able to post a filthy picture of his $2 girlfriend.

More 2 cents worth


>-----Original Message-----

>From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com 

>[mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] On Behalf Of Boisy G. Pitre

>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 1:16 PM

>To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts

>Subject: Re: [Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?

>

>

>On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:03 PM, James Dessart wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Boisy G. Pitre wrote:

>>

>>> But why create gateways and openings when we could just 

>congregate in 

>>> one place?  If one thing fractures the CoCo community, it's "this 

>>> group" and "that mailing list."

>>

>> We are currently congregated in one place. Are there people 

>who are on 

>> the newsgroup and not on here? Why aren't they here?

>

>No, we are not.  There are still CoCo posts ongoing on 

>bit.listserv.coco.

>

>Remember James, this group came about as a result of a problem: SPAM.  

>Without that impetus, I doubt this group would have been 

>created.  So the "fracturing" took place already.  Those 

>people on bit.listserv.coco never left in the first place.  

>Who are we to say they belong "here" 

>and not "there?"

>

>>

>>> As I suspected, I'm swimming against the tide here.  What 

>surprises me

>>> is that no one has seen the validity in the ideas I've expressed, 

>>> which

>>> I think are quite sensible.

>>

>> I fail to see it as such. It would be sensible if we could expect the

>> newsgroup to always be pristine. It may be quiet now, but increased

>> membership is likely to also increase the garbage. You haven't

>> demonstrated how it would be more convenient either, and 

>it's not any 

>> more

>> convenient. We'd still need to get the word out in any case, because

>> relying on people bumping across the list or group on google 

>is equally

>> ridiculous for whatever medium we use to discuss.

>

>If we are talking about "garbage" here, I could certainly 

>point out the 

>vast amount of "off topic" posts that this list endures from time to 

>time.  Come on.  It's a weak argument that you're making here.  

>Consolidation and unification is my primary objective.  Again, 

>assuming 

>that the list is SPAM-free, I think it would make the best 

>sense to use 

>that resource for the reasons I mentioned in my last message.

>

>> When looking at something like this, you can't choose to 

>ignore all the

>> data. Looking at one aspect, convenience, leaves out all the 

>> interactions

>> with other aspects, like anonymity, that will affect the convenience 

>> when

>> the environment changes. I'm sure there's lots of room for research 

>> into

>> online community dynamics, and I'm certain you'd get a picture of a

>> complex system.

>

>I am not ignoring the data; I am merely giving it its appropriate 

>weight in light of the priorities which we should all be aiming 

>towards: accessibility and convenience.  And I think the heritage of 

>the bit.listserv.coco list also carries some weight.  Problems have 

>been fixed, issues have been resolved.  It's a viable place for 

>discussion that has a wider audience.  Why would you be opposed to 

>that?

>--

>Boisy G. Pitre

>E-Mail: boisy at boisypitre.com

>Mobile: (337) 781-3997

>Web: www.boisypitre.com

>

>

>-- 

>Coco mailing list

>Coco at maltedmedia.com

>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

>