MichaelP--let's try a win/win solution
MichaelP
definition to be directed to a closed group, or you want to moderate posts
so that only what meets your definition is posted that's not difficult.
But please don't tell me how my activism [ which is always subject to
critical evaluation ] should or should not be conducted - this isn't a
top-down hierarchical situation.
peace, justice , love and anarchy
Michael
===================
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, CISCAP wrote:
To Local Activists, and Michael P,
Sure, Micheal P, you're right to say that local activism extends past
Eugene, but I don't think it goes as far as say, Chiapas. We call that
international, or Latin American solidarity, activism here in Eugene ;-)
And sure, you're right to imply that information on, say, Chiapas is
information that local activists in the Eugene/Springfield area can
use--I'm just such a "local activist", and I use that information all the
time. But the thing is, there are numerous lists that CISCAP already
subscribes to, from which we get more than enough info on Chiapas.
(BTW--if anyone ever wants to subcribe to these lists on Chiapas, let me
know, and I'll send them subscription info.)
Michael, if you know who these "several" subscribers are, why not just add
them to your lists, and drop local_activists from your distribution list?
That way, you'd be sending your e-mail to the folks who want it, and not
bothering the folks who don't.
By the way, to everyone out there who wants to give me "advise" about my
concerns: over the years I have grown quite weary of folks condesendingly
telling me that my frustrations are not real. So please, don't "point out"
to me the existance of the delete function when checking e-mail, or about
how you get millions of e-mail a day and it doesn't bother you a bit.
A win/win solution that benefits everyone exists, and I can't understand
why folks wouldn't want to use it.
Scott Miksch
speaking as the person who has to check all the e-mail for CISCAP
At 1:00 PM 12/5/0, MichaelP wrote:
>Michael P "owns" several well-populated lists of which one contains
>local_a...@efn.org because several subscribers to that Eugene-based
>list think local activism encompasses activism from outside the
>Eugene locality
>
>Cheers
>
>MichaelP
> =================
>On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, David Oaks - Support Coalition International wrote:
>
>
>I agree. Think positive Bernie, many people might join your e-mail
>list and read your posts!
>
>I think some folks such as Bernie and Michael P suspect that if they
>created their own e-mail list then only a handful of people would
>ever join it.
>
>Only one way to find out.....
David Oaks - Support Coalition International
We can agree to disagree, but I think "activism" includes personal
empowerment and respect for people's decision-making.
So I *could* just add "local_activists list" address to our TEN
e-mail lists, and every day local_activists list would be getting
about a dozen activist messages or more about psychiatric rights.
But I respect the fact that some people on the list might choose or
NOT choose to be on those other lists. I figure they already get
enough of my direct personal posts.
Look, the bottom line is that Paul Harrison is the steward of this
list, and he apparently doesn't care.
So I hope you agree I have the perfect right to say here, "Anyone
into starting a couple of new, moderated, more focused lists about
local activism?"
If you have a problem with that statement, then I guess we do indeed
have very different definitions of "activism."
Meanwhile, throughout the Internet e-mail lists tend to be careful
before adding people, especially adding e-mail addresses for whole
lists run by others.... and they also tend to allow people easy ways
to unsubscribe. It's up to you if you want to add that information
onto "Michael P" list posts, and it's up to each of us to have an
opinion about your decision, if we choose.
- David
CISCAP
MichaelP
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, David Oaks - Support Coalition International wrote:
Easy, Michael P.
We can agree to disagree, but I think "activism" includes personal
empowerment and respect for people's decision-making.
So I *could* just add "local_activists list" address to our TEN
e-mail lists, and every day local_activists list would be getting
about a dozen activist messages or more about psychiatric rights.
But I respect the fact that some people on the list might choose or
NOT choose to be on those other lists. I figure they already get
enough of my direct personal posts.
Look, the bottom line is that Paul Harrison is the steward of this
list, and he apparently doesn't care.
So I hope you agree I have the perfect right to say here, "Anyone
into starting a couple of new, moderated, more focused lists about
local activism?"
If you have a problem with that statement, then I guess we do indeed
have very different definitions of "activism."
====================================
I have absolutely no problem with your last two paragraphs. There is no
getting away from the fact that susbcription lists are owned, the
list-owner defines the list's purpose and - ultimately - decides whether
it's satisfactory that a list is subscribed to more than 70 (less than 80)
persons AND to a bulletin board (usenet newsgroup). Certainly a group
wishing - for eample - to affect Eugen city politics can and should decide
that discussion and tactics and ... be limited to something "relevant" to
that mission - and that mission will be stated when the scope of the list
is defined.
As to "personal empowerment and respect for people's decision-making"
please think about what these two items mean in the context of activism.
I am empowered to post, you are empowered to not read. The disempowered
has absolutely no way to turn off the flow. Think junk-mail.
As to respect for decision-making - the activist is most likely
disrespectful of decisions made in disrespect of -for example - peace or
justice.
Michael