From: flannon <flannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:25:50 -0700 (MST)
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Chris Allert wrote:
> Actually, I guess we don't really need another l*st,it's just that this
> list has gotten so huge (I've been reviewing my e-mail for the last 20
> minutes). I think that if we agree to all use the same subject for
> messages concerning the 'foucault roundtable' that should make it easier
> for people who are not involved to delete our messages.
I'd have to agree that we don't need another l*st, in fact I think
setting up another l*st is a bad idea. The traffic on the l*st is very
sparadic which has always struck me as strange since there are more than
500 people subbed to the list. I think that fragmentation into sublists
will only contribute to to the vast periods of silence. A single list is
is not only capable of handling multiple threads but it also makes the
list much more interesting as divergent threads intersect and build new
points of discord and harmony. The marxism list is a good example of
such a situation: there's just too much on marxism to keep up with
everything and yet there's a certain sense in which it propels itself by
its own weight. As has been pointed out logistics becomes an issue but
there are some strategies that can be adopted to to aeviate some of the
tension. First off, if if the number of messages is just too much the
l*st is available in digest form. To sub to the digest send a message to
majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, leave the subject line blank
and in the body of the text write:
(without the *'s, of course).
Another good strategy to adopt is not to quote entire articles, but just the
relevant sections that you are replying to. Its really a pin to get ten
screens of quoted text and a single line of something new. As has also
been mentioned trying to be concise in the subject line will allow those
interested in a particular thread to skip over the other stuff. On the
subject of threading I'm trying to get hypermail so the l*st can be read with
netscape and it lets you search by subject and thread posts. At the moment I
don't have time to do this so it wont be working until some time in April.
In so far as making a decision between reading _The Order of Things_ or "The
Discourse on Language" is concerned, there's no real necessity for such a
decision. As I said, the l*st is perfectly capable of handling multiple
threads, so if you're interested in one more than the other post on it, I'm
sure that there are enough people here that you'll hit someone's interest.
In fact I would encourage concurrent readings because it will bring out some
interesting thhings about how these two works interact with one another.