[Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?

[billg]

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

>-----Original Message-----
>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 
>congregate in 
>>> 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 
>bit.listserv.coco.
>
>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 
>surprises me
>>> is that no one has seen the validity in the ideas I've expressed, 
>>> which
>>> 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 
>> more
>> 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 
>is equally
>> 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, 
>assuming 
>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 
>> interactions
>> with other aspects, like anonymity, that will affect the convenience 
>> when
>> the environment changes. I'm sure there's lots of room for research 
>> into
>> 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 
>that?
>--
>Boisy G. Pitre
>E-Mail: boisy at boisypitre.com
>Mobile: (337) 781-3997
>Web: www.boisypitre.com
>
>
>-- 
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>