RE: [Leica] Re: Let's move on ?

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Roger,

There is sado-masochism here: it took me a full 45 minutes this sunday 
morning (GMT+1) to plough through the night's 94 posts, of which I kept 
exactly 3: information on MF slide mounts, Nathan's 15mm purchase 
and...Lucian's post on Girrard Perregaux. If I had erased all the off-topic 
posts or filtered out off-topic posters (the LUG equivalent of 
eradication), I would have missed that very interesting piece of industrial 
history.

So, as much as I sometimes get angry at the time loss imposed on me by 
waves of pointless off topic posts, I must recognise the fact that I do 
keep and average of 3-4 posts a day, and occasional posts not related to 
Leica. That adds up to a nice knowledge base, for which I am genuinely 
grateful to a very wide variety of posters, including the 
Mercedes/Rolex/beemer/Mont Blanc/Lagavulin fanatics  ;-)

No way out of this, I fear....

Alan

On dimanche 13 juin 1999 1:56, Roger Beamon [SMTP:roger@beamon.org] wrote:
> Sorry, Jim. This is one time I am not in league with you. These
> folk have every right to complain about the S/N ratio. They, like
> many others, thought they subscribed to a *dedicated* mailing list.
>
> Too many are making this list their personal playground. There
> are indeed other fora that would be proper for the incessant OT
> stuff that is overplayed to the hilt here.
>
> This group is no more intelligent than those who use other
> marques. To subscribe to that thesis and believe that it is a love
> of Leica that gives them "a lot to talk about" is pure self-
> aggrandizement.
>
> Check out other photographic related lists. Hasselblad and Rollei
> are easily accessible, Rollei through this same server. There, Marc
> has the control, as listowner, to see that OT stuff doesn't get out
> of hand. True, they are both smaller lists, but that is not the
> governing factor. Suppression of 'free speech' is not germane
> either. It's merely a matter of the listowner having a mission and
> sticking to it. Dan's work with the Hassy list is likewise
> commendable.
>
> If Brian is happy with the list as it is, then he should restate its
> agenda. "General interest discussions with a bias toward
> photography and a mild preference toward Leica equipment"
> might cover it.
>
> Though I haven't read it for awhile, even the EOS List used to stay
> in the pool far better than does this list. OT stuff, will, like you
> know what, happen, but it shouldn't overwhelm the list as it has
> here for a long time.
>
> Me? I'd opt for a stronger, if smaller and more aglomerated, list
> anytime vs. a bigger group running out of control most of the
> time. But, I've always been an elitist.  :^)
>
> Even Peter's supposed Leica bashing was far more on topic than
> what's been going down here recently. I recall you wondering
> outloud why he bothered to subscribe with the strong implication
> that he shouldn't even be here.
>
> I strongly support the "let's move on" proposal.
>
> On 12 Jun 99, Jim Brick wrote, at least in part:
>
> > Sitting back and complaining that OTHER people are talking about
> > un-interesting stuff is more of an annoyance than the other 
conversation
> > itself. At least the somewhat off topic threads come and go and always
> > relate in various ways to Leicas. Complaining about the conversations 
does
> > NOT relate to Leicas. It relates to complaining.
> >
> > A group of, I suppose, upper class intelligent folks, have a lot to 
talk
> > about. And it stems from the love of Leica, and of course, related
> > passions. This is what makes this list special. Brian is not a 
moderating
> > monger. He realizes that in the long run, the amount of Leica related
> > photographic data that passes through the electronic "ether" is
> > substantial. And to keep the 800 or so Leica friends limited to a very
> > narrow conversation, would basically kill the LUG.
>
>
>
> --
> Roger
> mailto:roger@beamon.org
>
>     When a public offical accepts a gift,
>      he dissolves the pearl of independence
>      in the vinegar of obligation.
>              -- Henry Fountain Ashurst
>