Re: administrative help anyone?

[Guest guest]

> I'm subscribed to the digest version as I'm sure are others. I'm

> getting the digest but without the heading where you can click on

the

> link to send a new message back to the group i.e. I have to go back

> to

> the website and click " post " to post a message. I've checked

around

> the website ioncluding the HELP area, but don't see anything on

this

> topic. Since (moderator of the main list) has made it clear

he

> can't help us out in any way, shape or form, is there anyone in our

> new

> group that knows how to do this?

Click on Contact Us and go to Customer Support. I'm not doing the

digest version, but on another list, I just send an email addressed

to

the list using the same subject heading as the post I'm responding to.

Dixie

[Guest guest]

> I'm subscribed to the digest version as I'm sure are others. I'm

> getting the digest but without the heading where you can click on

the

> link to send a new message back to the group i.e. I have to go back

> to

> the website and click " post " to post a message.

I assume you're talking about the main list...

I made a change to the settings in the CRSociety egroup archive that

should make replies to the group easier. Here's what I do:

1) Get the digest in email and read a message I want to reply to.

2) Make sure I'm logged into egroups (unfortunately you have to be an

egroups member to be able to reply via egroups)

3) Go the egroups crsociety messages and find the message I want to

reply to (messages/crsociety)

4) Click on " Reply "

5) Type my reply and click on Send Message

Prior to last night sometime when I updated the settings, you had to

fiddle with the " " choices to make it go back to the group, but I

think I've got it defaulting correctly now.

Let me know if you have problems with this... I may be getting a

slightly distorted view since I'm the " owner " of the crsociety

egroup, but I don't think so.

cheers, michael

[Guest guest]

From: <fskelton@e...>

Date: Wed Oct 18, 2000 4:48am

Subject: administrative help anyone?

> I'm subscribed to the digest version as I'm sure

> are others. I'm getting the digest but without

> the heading where you can click on the link to

> send a new message back to the group i.e. I have

> to go back to the website and click " post " to

> post a message. I've checked around the website

> ioncluding the HELP area, but don't see anything

> on this topic. Since (moderator of the

> main list) has made it clear he can't help us

> out in any way, shape or form, is there anyone

> in our new group that knows how to do this?

Hello Francesca,

I believe I detect, from the tone of your message, some frustration

with me.

That's difficult for me to understand.

We need not pursue it in detail, however.

I would nevertheless like to correct two points in your post.

1. As I indicated to you several times over email this past summer, I

am not the moderator of crsociety. I am only the administrator. The

list is moderated collectively, via a separate list created for that

purpose: crs_meta@....

2. I don't believe I ever " made clear " what you seem to think I made

clear. (But I'm not sure who the " us " is.) I have absolutely nothing

to do with the eGroups MIRROR of crsociety. I'm unfamiliar with the

mechanics of the system. But I don't believe I ever made clear that I

can't help you in any " way, shape or form, " certainly not that I

can't

help you as far as possible future technical help goes. Indeed, at

the

moment, I and others are investigating what better forms crsociety

might take. Some of those forms would make the " click " option you

describe above possible. No change will be made in the near future,

however, since I think rash decisions about changes in the form of a

community's communication often lead to ultimately damaging fractures

in the community itself.

Your frustration (if I'm rightly perceiving it) may have to do with

inaction regarding an entirely different matter: your conflict with

Joe Record (and then with others).

I did indeed indicate that I was reluctant to step in and take action

against people who reacted unkindly towards you. But this was not

because I was unwilling in " any way, shape or form " to help, but,

rather because:

A. You violated the rules of the List, which hold that matters of

etiquette, future changes to the List, etc., are to be broached on

crs_meta.

Had you followed the rules, the matter could have been resolved in a

way that might have eliminated the need for your separate list

(though

there are no doubt other reasons for your list, and it may ultimately

prove to be a very productive forum for many people). Indeed, we

could

have improved the general tenor of the list, not just hte particular

prob. you were having with Joe.

B. It was a very complicated interpersonal matter. From my

standpoint,

you, in fact, are the one who first engaged in inappropriate

behavior,

by insulting Joe Record without (again: from my standpoint) the

slightest provocation from him, aside from his use of some

four-letter

words. You wrote, to the List:

> Joe: I know you're young, but must you show it in

> your vulgarities? Grow up and keep it on a mature

> level so we don't have to be subjected to your

> crudeness.

If you found his language distasteful, there might have been plenty

of

far less inflaming ways to make the point publicly, and, of course,

you could have made it privately (perhaps you ultimately did).

I share at least part of your sentiment, and that of others, that

there is more unkindness on crsociety than seems necessary (though

far less than on most very large email lists). Ultimately, a superior

filtering mechanism (far better than is possible on eGroups) is, in

my

view, the best solution. Values about etiquette vary too widely for a

useful uniform standard to make sense. With good filtering, people

who

don't want to see four-letter words can not see such messages.

Likewise, people who don't want to see people being told to " grow up "

can not see such messages.

Anothr part of a solution would be more earnest attempts (by third

parties, like me) at conflict resolution. I regret that the chaos in

my personal life over the summer prevented me from playing a more

active role between you and Joe and the others.

When such a system is put in place (by next summer, at the latest, I

hope), perhaps the current fracture can be healed. Such a healing

would be a good development for many reasons, one of which is Dean's

concern about people new to CR getting high quality health

information.

Best,

.

(cc'd to crs_meta)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Hello Francesca,

>

> I believe I detect, from the tone of your message, some frustration

> with me.

>

> That's difficult for me to understand.

>

> We need not pursue it in detail, however.

>

> 2. I don't believe I ever " made clear " what you seem to think I made

> clear. (But I'm not sure who the " us " is.) I have absolutely nothing

> to do with the eGroups MIRROR of crsociety. I'm unfamiliar with the

> mechanics of the system. But I don't believe I ever made clear that I

> can't help you in any " way, shape or form, " certainly not that I

> can't

> help you as far as possible future technical help goes. Indeed, at

> the

> moment, I and others are investigating what better forms crsociety

> might take. Some of those forms would make the " click " option you

> describe above possible. No change will be made in the near future,

> however, since I think rash decisions about changes in the form of a

> community's communication often lead to ultimately damaging fractures

> in the community itself.

>

Dear and list: My reference to making clear that he

couldn't offer us any help was my interpretation of this e-mail from

to me back in September before the group began:

Hi Francesca,

Your idea is a good one. But let me be totally frank: I have no

time to make this happen, to help make it happen, or even to

offer advice about it. At least right now. My CR-related

activities are too numerous now. And then there's the rest of my

life.

But if you want to make it happen, go for it.

Best,

.

As for the rest of 's lengthy post to the support group, I don't

know why he brought in events that took place months ago on the main

list, and have long been forgotten by me and probably others that were

involved. In fact Joe (who mentions) and I made our peace off

list a long ago. I apologized to for any trouble I might have

caused back then. I also reached out to Dean after his departure a few

weeks ago, off list, and we also made peace. I abandoned any attempt to

" interfere " with the goings on with the main list many months ago,

before this list started. But it does seem as if a couple of main

list people are trying to question the existence of the support list.

The two lists serve different purposes and compliment each other. One

does not take away anything from the other.

We now have almost 85 people, so there would seem to be an interest and

a need for this list. However should the main list change in such a

way that it meets the needs of " support list " people, that would be

fine with me and perhaps we wouldn't need this auxiliary list.

[Guest guest]

Francesca wrote:

[ wrote:]

>> 2. I don't believe I ever " made clear " what

>> you seem to think I made

>> clear. (But I'm not sure who the " us " is.) I have absolutely

>> But I don't believe I ever made clear

>> can't help you in any " way, shape or form, " certainly not that I

>> can't help you as far as possible

>> FUTURE technical help goes.

(emphasis added)

>> Indeed, at

>> the moment, I and others are investigating

>> what better forms crsociety

>> might take.

[....]

> Dear and list: My reference to making

> clear that he couldn't offer us any help was my

> interpretation of this e-mail from

> to me back in September before the group began:

[....]

!!

Francesca, I'm astonished that you would engage in THE canonical act

of bad net etiquette, especially after Greg's having done precisely

that to Rae, and the ensuing discussion thereof.

One of the dangers of such an act, among many, is that by quoting

someone out of context, you might radically misrepresent them.

The context is that you had emailed me _repeatedly_ asking to do

various things about various people, and I was getting frustrated,

especially since you weren't following the rules of the List.

Then you asked me, as I interpreted it, to create a whole separate

forum, for -- as I saw it -- merely the purpose of helping you avoid

the consequences of your having insulted a long-time list member.

Still, taken out of context, and even in context, it certainly makes

sense of your interpretation of my last email (of that series),

despite this:

>> At least right NOW. My CR-related

>> activities are too numerous NOW.

(emphasis added)

In sum, I understand, but wish to stress that

I'm keenly interested in finding and refining

forums for the discussion of CR. So: enough

about that particular misunderstanding

(though keep in mind that quoting

personal email in a public forum -- even where it might seem

necessary

in order to answer this or that charge -- tends to piss people off

[me

much less than others, so no biggie as far as I'm concrned]).

Now, about the summer and my feelings about the new list:

My frustration, especially my frustration from the summer, comes/came

from your not being willing to wait for a possibly better solution,

and ESPECIALLY, for my failure to see that what you wanted, or what

you would end up with, is moving towards being, in essence, something

which covers almost PRECISELY the same set of topics covered by

crsociety, but just for a different group of people.

> As for the rest of 's lengthy post to the

> support group, I don't know why he brought in

> events that took place months ago on the main

> list,

It's because someone brought the post to which I responded to my

attention (though, again, I understand your post better now that I

realize that you interpreted my last email out of context).

Also, perhaps most importantly, I wanted to clarify, yet again, that

I

am not the moderator of crsociety.

> and have long been forgotten by me and

> probably others that were involved.

They have not been forgotten by others who were involved, which is

also why I brought it up. I've received a few emails about it over

the

last two or so weeks.

> But it does seem as if a couple of main

> list people are trying to question the existence

> of the support list.

Yes, and this is yet another reason why I responded. I won't respond

further until I think more about it, but a few people have emailed me

worrying about several things, one of which is that the " support "

list

is functioning as a purveyor of bad science, which could harm those

who follow it. (I'm not yet able to judge that concern with

certainty.)

> The two lists serve different purposes and compliment

> each other.

I'm not sure they serve different purposes, in practice. As you

described the idea of your list to me over the summer, it seemed that

it would indeed serve a different purpose, which is part of why I

thought it would be a good idea, at least to try. But now it seems to

be about different people, not a different purpose.

> One does not take away anything from the other.

I'm not sure that's true, or, more to the point, I'm not sure that

BOTH aren't taking something away from what might have been, and

could

still be, an improved forum for CR discussions.

I really don't know (i.e., " not sure " means just that).

It's a very complicated matter.

It may be that two lists that serve the exact purpose (from the

standpoint of topic discussed), but for people with different senses

of right conduct, or communicative styles, is precisely what's

needed.

but then we should be clear about what happened: one group of people

didn't like the way another group was acting, so, rather than trying

really hard to solve the problem, or creating a forum where the

problem might eventually solve itself, they just left. Is this good or

bad? Not clear (to me).

Anyway, sorry for my part in misunderstandings.

Best,

.

P.S. pardon typos (also in prev. msg).

[Guest guest]

Dear : I do apologize for using your e-mail to me without asking

your permission. As a matter of fact I was pissed off at Dean once for

that very same infraction when he did it.

However that being said, and since the e-mail has already been

divulged, I note your statements in that e-mail: " Your idea is a good

one " ... and: ... " if you want to make it happen, go for it " . Implying

of course that you approve, and I should go ahead and start one.

As for " science " - we repeatedly point people to the main list, all the

archives, all the books and urge them to do their own research and

reach their own conclusions. IMHO it's presumptuous to assume that the

people on this list are inferior in some way and incapable of a

separate list.

In any event, since this discussion is not about Support or CR, and you

often tell people on the main list to take administrative and non-CR

topics off list, I recommend that this discussion as well be continued

off list. Thank you in advance for what I hope will be your

cooperation.

[Guest guest]

> Dear : I do apologize for using your e-mail

> to me without asking your

> permission.

It's not a big deal, honestly.

> However that being said, and since the e-mail

> has already been divulged, I note your statements

> in that e-mail: " Your idea is a

> good one " ... and: ... " if you want to make

> it happen, go for it " .

> Implying of course that you approve, and I

> should go ahead and start one.

And I'll note, again, that the question is not WHETHER or not there

was my approval (and who am I to approve anyway? one might ask), but

rather about WHAT IT WAS that you were proposing, which is not, it so

far appears, what has developed.

> IMHO it's presumptuous to assume that the

> people on this list are inferior in some way

It wasn't an assumption at all.

> and incapable of a

> separate list.

" Capability " isn't how I would frame the question. People are capable

of all sorts of amazing things!

> In any event, since this discussion is not about

> Support or CR [...],

I actually think it IS about support. Nonetheless, I shall follow

your recommendation here:

> and you often tell people on the main list to

> take administrative and non-CR

> topics off list, I recommend that this discussion

> as well be continued

> off list. Thank you in advance for what I hope will be your

> cooperation.

I apologize for needing to make the corrections above. I shall

cooperate from now on (we've each made an equal number of posts

referencing the other person, a good time to call it a wrap!),

provided it's noted that my silence does not

represent an endorsement of any future representation by you of my

beliefs.

Good luck, and stay (or become) healthy!

.