[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: extinguish the extinction thread



In a message dated 8/23/98 6:30:33 PM, Mickey Rowe wrote:

<<I received one call to end the extinction thread when it seemed that
the thread was dying down.  I figured I'd let the thread die a natural
death since most of the participants were saying they were saying
their last words.  But now I've received a second request and those
who were saying their last words are finding they have more last
words...
Be it hereby decreed that the current extinction threads should be
taken off-list. >>

Well . . . . okay, but . . . .

Reasons a thread should never be terminated:
1. Creative thinking often comes only after all the trivial and obvious stuff
have been barfed out.
2. In an open, non-cliquey mail-list, it would seem that there would always be
newcomers who needed to hear the same-old-thing-over-again-ad-infinitum.
Perhaps those who want to carry on highly-sophisticated and non-redundant
debates should meet on this list, then take their subgroup off list for a
while to do the debate their way, then come back when ready to face the
general pubic, with all its naivite and enthusiasm, again.
3. Something like extinction is so central to people's interest in dinosaurs,
that I could imagine a list where it was one of several threads that NEVER
died.
4. The desire to not have to repeat onesself, expressed by several respondents
to the extinction thread, strikes me as an attempt at controlling the debate.
Questionable to me, on an open mail-list.
5. It seems possible to have a list where there are many cool threads to
visit, and where, if you personnally have had enough of one, you just drag all
such-and-such-titled mail to your own personal trash, and feel good for not
having wasted time on it.  Calling for termination after you have said your
piece seems like trying to limit what is said to just your own point of view.

Respectfully, to all concerned,
    Tom Hopp