Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums

From: David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Some good advice from someone with a clue:

If you don't find a posting useful, if you think that it misses the
point or is argumentative or just uninteresting, if you wish that it
never appeared because you think it distracts attention from the main
point of the thread, then for God's sake, don't follow up to it!  I
guarantee you that simply ignoring postings that go in directions that
you don't find useful or interesting, while making interesting and
cogent and useful remarks on those contributions which you find
enlightening and responsive, is a million times more effective in
steering a thread in the direction that you want it to go, than is
asserting "ownership" of the thread and acting bemused that people don't
ask your permission before posting to it.  Maybe a billion times.

The purpose of a followup posting is not to respond to the person who
posted the first message.  It's to make a point or contribute in a way
that the poster believes is of interest to some people in the audience
reading the postings.  It no more matters whether you feel that that
followup is or is not germane or interesting or relevant than it matters
whether you feel that any other posting in the newsgroup---or any
newsgroup---is or is not germane or interesting or relevant.

David desJardins

References

A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
spamfree@metropolis.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000