When I saw the posting inviting more people to participate in Pen-l I
had the feeling that it would provoke the usual responses: some calling
for more relevance and defensive posturing by current participants.
As someone new to this virtual email stuff and as a sociologist, I've
been content to read and learn. I agree that more information could
be passed on and more topics discussed and a general call for more
participation is not only a good idea but should be a periodically done.
But. But lets not rush to economize. Geez, the fetish of scarcity
among economists seems strong. The problem of the commons is valid,
but since the amount or nature of email traffic on pen-l ebbs and flows
I suspect it is a problem to the extent that pen-l continues to grow.
Perhaps not. I suspect that right now it is the effort to wade through
a lot of email that is a problem for some folks. Thats e-life.
I'd also like to remind folks of a good rule of thumb in dealing
electronic discussion lists. Not all threads in a discussion have to
be read. If you aren't interested in a thread, then discard those
postings and move on. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the LTV and
tend toward C. Wright Mills' dismissive comment about the labor metaphysic,
but I found the discussion interesting. More important its what I would
expect to find on this list and I encourage those who contributed to
continue. Theory is relevant. And it doesn't drown out other concerns.
More participation is not the same as a different kind.
Dennis
BRES@UCONNVM
