Re:limitations

[Randy Wray <lwray@xxxxxx>]

On the open forum:
1. I think there were many reasoned arguments for and against formal
limits. This is not a free speech matter. At a cocktail party, if one
begins to dominate, others can interrupt, complain, or simply walk
away. Bill threatens he could fill up our mailboxes w/one post per
day. Precisely the problem. Self discipline, please.
2. Ric's solution (messages, then social pressure) should work out
fine. Of course, when things are hot and heavy, several messages in a
day are fine; I never advocated a strict one/day limit. On average,
one/day should be sufficient.
3. However, I wonder if another solution would be possible. If not too
much work for Ric, can we have several cable channels here? PKTA: chat
line/cocktail party. Full of jokes, humor, bad language, spontaneous
remarks, etc that many on pkt love. PKTB: Info line. Requests for
citations, notices of conferences, new books and reviews, notices of
new papers with summaries, well-thought-out questions and responses.
PKTC: seminar line.
PKTB and PKTC would have an informal agreement that posts would be
first typed using a word processor, spelling would be checked, cites
would be checkd, posts would be pondered, spontaneous reactions would
be self-limited, comments of a personal nature would be kept off
(again, self discipline as a first resort and social pressure as a
last resort).
PKTA would be unregulated, no limits, anything goes. No self
discipline whatsoever. (Ok, I am being sarcastic. But those who have
been complaining--like me--would stay off pkta.)

Jamie seemed to ask for more precise use of subject heading. I think
this is a good idea, but it also has to be weighed against the
disadvantages of multiplying numbers of posts. I prefer one post that
may hit several subjects. That way those who have put me on
semi-automatic delete only have to delete one post. Perhaps one could
list several subjects in a longer post.

Randy Wray

(PS, i did not get a chance to thank Bruce for sending paul's paper to
me; nor did i explain that Roger was correct in his post in reaction
to Gary's post--my response was not specifically about Roger's post.
Sorry for the convolutions.)