Re: sci.bio.paleontology and PALEONET

[rowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mickey Rowe)]

In the spinoffs generated from the imminent creation of s.b.p, Una
Smith writes:

> one person mentions noisy arguments on the DINOSAUR mailing list
> (apparently without reading it)

Well, we've got a nice game of "pass it on" going here, don't we...
No offense, Una, but I would prefer it if anyone who has not
subscribed to the dinosaur list just not say anything at all about it.
What was previously claimed was that it was an "endless source of
frustration ... to all but a dedicated few".  As the owner of the
dinosaur mailing list, I'm starting to take real offense at such
statements on this group because I personally have spent a good bit of
effort trying to encourage professionals to subscribe to and
participate on the list because I want to maintain it as a forum for
high quality discussions.  Personally I think we've had a good bit of
success, and I hate to see the base that we've built destroyed by
innuendo from people who haven't bothered to look at the evidence
themselves.  To our credit, despite the fact that it was members of
the dinosaur list that worked to get s.b.p created, we have not yet
revisited the topic of "how does the new group effect us" which is
currently a source of almost pure noise (IMHO) on *this* list.

Una, I would have expected you of all people to be more sympathetic
since you know the kind of headaches that list administration entails.
How would *you* like it if people who have never taken advantage of
bionet recommended to other professionals that they not bother either?
Admittedly you didn't do that, but you passed on the innuendo, and I
think that's worse.

All that said, I will re-recommend what I said the first time this
discussion came around; I agree that paleonet should *not* be linked
to s.b.p, but that it would be a good idea for the group to be linked
to another mailing list.  I'd volunteer, but I'm doing enough
thankless jobs, thanks.

-- 
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)