[Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?
cwgordon at charter.net
Mon Mar 21 13:20:33 EST 2005
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
>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
>>> 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
>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
>>> is that no one has seen the validity in the ideas I've expressed,
>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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,
>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
>> with other aspects, like anonymity, that will affect the convenience
>> the environment changes. I'm sure there's lots of room for research
>> 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
>Boisy G. Pitre
>E-Mail: boisy at boisypitre.com
>Mobile: (337) 781-3997
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
More information about the Coco