When I wrote,
T> Anyone incapable of answering email is no asset to a mailing list ...
Chuq objected,
V> Sorry, David, but that's a very bogus, elitist attitude.
Not at all. People who won't write email don't contribute to the list,
neither publicly nor privately. There's nothing bogus nor elitist in that.
"People who need help learning how to send email will never be assets to the
list" would be bogus and elitist.
Perhaps my induction from inability to reply to email to inability to send
email at all has exceptions, but usually it's easier (or no harder) to reply
to mail one has received than to initiate a correspondence; I've more than
once had people ask me to write first, or thank me for having written first,
because they did not know how to send email except by replying to something
they've received. I've never known of anyone capable of addressing fresh
email but baffled at how to send a reply, so it's pretty safe to say that
someone who can't answer a message can't send one either.
V> e-mail savvy does not translate to competency on other topics.
Do you think I said it did? Of course it doesn't, but if people neither post
to the list nor send private replies to others' posts, then their competence
on other topics, however great and renowned, does not benefit the list, and
that's my point. A light hidden under a bushel doesn't show anyone else the
way.
Even so, the list can still be an asset to *them*, and that's usually the
reason that listowners want to put these people on: for what the list can do
for them rather than for what they can do for the list. Often these are
new employees who have to read company announcements but don't know their way
around the email system yet, or family members who should be told relatives'
news even if they never speak up on the family mailing list.
But I don't see what is elitist or bogus in saying that people who cannot
send email do not post to mailing lists nor write to other members, so they
don't do anything for the list.
OK, there is an exception: if the list sells advertising space, then the eyes
of lurkers are as valuable as the eyes of contributors. The fingers of mem-
bers who post may be more valuable than the fingers of lurkers, because the
listowner needs somewhere to insert those ads, but lurkers, even those who
can't write email, are fully capable of clicking on the links or dialing the
phone numbers in the ads. I have on rare occasions told an extremely con-
fused newbie that (s)he is really not ready to be on a mailing list and
wished him/her well while releasing him/her from the confusion that receiving
my list was causing; a listowner who sells ad space would never do that.
V> It might well be true on list-managers or majordomo-owners, but why in the
V> heck should it matter for South Bay Birds or Atlanta-Thrashers?
Do you mean, "It might well be true on lists that exist for their content,
but why in the heck should it matter for lists that exist for their ad reve-
nue?" Then we don't disagree. I meant that such people's subscriptions do
not benefit the other members, and granted, I wasn't thinking about what they
can do for the listowner.
