new to the list

From: Victor the Cleaner <jonathan_at_canuck.com>
Date: Sat Jan 9 13:44:08 1999

> Hi (from the list owner). :)

Hi yerself.

> I usually tell people to stop eventually, though I am rather lazy about it.
> Generally, I come down harder on the poltiical discussions.

I acknowledge that I'm jumping in without the benefit of a lurking period,
and that what I've seen so far may not be statistically significant, but
I'd like to offer a little perspective. I subscribe to a pretty varied
assortment of lists (ranging from old Ramblers to new music), and this is
by far the highest volume, with each digest in the 3000-4500 line range.

This, folks, is a lot of mail. In the case of at least one of the other
lists I subscribe to, the list owner borders on tyrannical in keeping the
discussion on-topic. We like it this way. Otherwise the S/N just drops
off too hard, and the list becomes more burden than useful.

> The Altair-price discussions are generally considered to be on topic,
> not just because they deal with classic computers, but because they deal
> with changes in the hobby of _collecting_ classic computers. If you've been
> looking at prices and available machines for any length of time, you can
> probably tell that it just isn't easy to pick up machines that used to be
> fairly readily available. (PDP-8's and -11's, for example.)

Understood. Me, I'm interested in the exchange of technical information,
and as I suggested above, it might be argued that the volume and variety
of discussion is going to make the list a less-than-satisfying thing for
people with specific interests.

Might I respectfully suggest that, in the absence of aggressive subject
management by the owner, the list would be better broken into four, say:

classiccmp-historical
classiccmp-technical
classiccmp-overblown_prices_collector_scum_die_die_die
classiccmp-more_about_television_licensing_really

> Maybe I should start keeping a list of subjects that are on-topic by
> consensus, and those that are off-topic by consensus.

That's admirably democratic of you, but impossible in practice. It's
really just a job for one individual's discretion, and I have no reason
to not trust yours.

Jonathan
Received on Sat Jan 09 1999 - 13:44:08 GMT