>I am rather appalled at the
>elitist attitude
May I point out that this is an interpretation, a judgement on your part,
and not a hard fact?
>some list subscribers are taking with regards to the
>list. So we have some newbies now and then, so we get spammed once in a
>while. If I were the powers that be, I'd keep the main list open and
>have higher level specialized lists for those who don't want to have
>their in boxes polluted by the tracks of ignorant plebes.
That might work too. I have no particular problem with that, provided that
it costs something of value, p front, not necessarily money but something
of value that must be redeemed, to join the "higher level" lists. PLEAS PAY
SPECIAL NOTE that "higher level" is again your interpretation, not
necessarily A Fact.
>Its not the
>cost that implies the "cult" flavor, its the isolationist attitude.
BZZZZT. Facts not in evidence.
>Those who don't want to be bothered with helping enlighten newbies to
>extropianism shouldn't have kept their subscription when the list went
>public.
Michael, where do _I_ fit in? Are you telling me, a person who never joined
until "the list went public", that I should never have joined? This doesn't
make any sense to me; Help me out here, please.
>Here's an interim suggestion: Have a free subscription period, of say 3,
>6 or 12 months. Then have a subscription rate for further membership to
>the list.
Here's a suggestion: Have a list where I can talk to people I trust and
respect, and other people can listen in. It's no more elitist than a panel
discussion on TV, and it only costs money if you want to subscribe with
write-privs to the list. And as I mentioned before, there's CRIT.
I don't see this as isolationist. Nor any more elitist than a gas station.
TANSTAAFL. My attention is worth something, AND SO IS YOURS. Get it? :)
>For those that complain about too much noise and too little substance,
>you should be pushing the list owners to police relevancy/ongoing
>stupidity more effectively. Subscribers should also police themselves.
>If you think someone is not on topic, first a) check the FAQ yourself,
>then b) email the relevant text in the FAQ to the offender.
Allow me to render a free translation: We should be perfect people, and
then any system would work.
BZZZZZT.
>Many people here who are ardent libertarians seem to be rather welfarish
>in their attitude toward noise/signal on the list.
I suggest you look to the seeming. I am offering to pay my own way; a
moment ago you were advocating that the list owners do more "policing".
There are at least two ironies here.
>If you think someone
>is an ingnorant nincompoop, use personal email to go into long and
>sufficient detail to educate the novice as to his or her error.
That's fine, IF you want to. Feeling obliged, OTOH, seems like
lightly-veiled, well, does the word "welfarish" ring a bell?
>THose
>who are too stubbornly newbie for it to have any effect on usually dig
>themselves deep enough for some real fun once they get into rude enough
>territory.
I don't want to play that game so much any more.
>If you are not taking personal responsibility for fixing up
>the signal to noise on the list, then its your fault. >
In your judgement. I believe I am taking personal responsibility by letting
the world (instead of just Max) know that I approve of the experiment.
>I find the threat
>of high subscription rates simply the moral equivalent of trade
>restrictions. Hardly libertarian.
Au contraire. The tragedy of the commons is being enacted out all around us.
>--
>TANSTAAFL!!!
Except in the extropy list, where we are supposed to give without end for
the good of the list, but it's still "free", but paying money for it is
sinful. *hunh*???
> Michael Lorrey
>
MMB
(NOTE: Robotlike replies to the above address will fail;
*noncommercial* communications are welcome; kindly
substitute a hyphen for the asterisk in the above address.
Sorry for any inconvenience.)