I agree with Mark.
>As Graham has said, the depth of breadth of the Digest is a product
>of the writings of those who post.
I agree with Mark (and Graham).
I have cooled on the Digest over the last year -- partly because I don't like the Digest format (I agree with Jane), partly because I don't like trying to follow discussions where I have a lot to respond to once a day (I agree with someone whose email I deleted; sorry) (not to mention that, if you miss a "deadline," your posts get hopelessly out of sync with the conversation, such as it is), partly because a lot of it is uninteresting (including, I am sure, some (if not most) of what I write), partly because I generally don't have the time to think about a Gloranthan issue for several days, especially if the conversation gets into semantic wrangling (when statement/ response/ clarification/ response/ argument/ response takes a week to resolve, who isn't sick of it?). However, I am unsure that the Digest would be improved by a Yahoo-style "post every 2 minutes" format; when the Digest works, it's because people take the time to check their sources and think about the implications. (I'm sure I'm agreeing with someone here). I also think that Graham has done great work at a largely thankless job, and I would like to take a second to thank him. Thanks, Graham.
So, I'm not all that happy with the Digest, and I am more likely to take discussions to private email than the Digest when they get too "digest-y," but I think the current "2 lists and the Digest" is way better than "let a million lists contend."
Peter Larsen (who is very agreeable today)
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail