TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264279474


From: "September McCarthy" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Concerns - please read
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:44:34 -0500
References: <6D1C662F14874261B908C3C9CA81CE32@ChristyPC>
In-Reply-To: <6D1C662F14874261B908C3C9CA81CE32@ChristyPC>


My apologies for contributing once again to the flood of emails from this
list. After thinking about the question of the default reply mode, I feel it
important to share my thoughts on this choice.

It seems to me that if the choice is made to make the default reply be to
the individual sender, then this list will devolve to a posting of
announcements and questions. Most of the meaningful replies would be to the
person, not the list. It could even lead to more unnecessary traffic when
multiple people send emails asking to be included in the answers to one
question. This would defeat its purpose entirely. If the replies to
questions are from individual to individual, then the other members lose out
on the opportunity to learn from those answers. As more questions (and
multiples instances of the same questions because the answers won't be on
the list) are addressed one-on-one, those relationships will be formed and
the list will be made redundant (to them, at least), eventually becoming
out-of-date and nonresponsive. People would find other lists, other
platforms for communicating.

It is the discussion that we are here for. It is the inspiration of the
questions we may not have thought to ask and the learning from the answers,
as actively or passively as our choices and circumstances dictate, that
makes this a list to belong to. And, not the least, it is the honest,
sincere and professional information and interactions that this list is
based upon that makes it credible. Sadly, this basis has been threatened,
members have been overloaded with what to them has started to become junk
email, and the trust that these interactions are of value to us, and thus
worth our time and effort, has a basis for questioning. But seeing where the
default reply mode decision could lead is, I hope, reason to give it another
chance. Perhaps there's a way to set a limit on how many emails an
individual member can send in a given time period?!? Perhaps there are other
ideas of how we could/should conduct ongoing discussions about standards
etc. Harold Henderson has made such a suggestion and started a discussion.
Right now everyone is weary of this. So I will end this here, hoping that no
one takes offense at anything I've said. It is intended with honest desire
to see this list and its contributors to continue to enjoy it as much as I
have.

Thanks for listening/reading,
September



This thread: