Re: Too much mail

[Steve Jolly]

I thought I should add my support to the PAW concept in its current 
incarnation.  I'll personally try to average one photo a week (or 
fewer), I guess.  I disagree with the suggestion of limiting the photos 
to those taken with Pentax equipment - there's already the PUG for that, 
and besides, I find it interesting to see what people have to complement 
their Pentax SLRs, and how well it performs. :-)

S

Amita Guha wrote:

Frankly, it seems that there are enough people here who like 
the concept just the way it is.  


I agree. I think the PAW is great the way it is. It has already allowed
me to display a couple of shots here that I couldn't have posted on the
PUG for one reason or another. We always talk about the gear on this
list, or about technique, but we so rarely discuss the results, or what
moves us to shoot, except for once a month when the PUG comes out. This
is a great way to share our common passion. And I think it's great that
it's drawing some lurkers out into the open.
Quite frankly, the endless talks about gear or cars or what have you can
get tedious, but I don't complain about them because that seems to be
what everyone wants to talk about. Likewise, if a lot of people are into
the PAW and you don't like it, just ignore it.
And I agree with Shel or whoever it was who said that it shouldn't be
restricted to just Pentax gear, since we're not hosting it on
PDML-sanctioned web space. 

Amita

Re: Too much mail

[Cotty]

On 24/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>And hasn't Cotty presented us with some
>neat Canon (whoops, C***n) images?  Guess he'd better lose
>the camera or get outta here.

In mitigation your honour, my PUG images are courtesy of a Pentax lens :-)





Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |   People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads http://www.macads.co.uk

Re: Too much mail

[Steve Desjardins]

There is not question that the traffic has increased, but I agree that
there are many who like the PAW stuff better then the technical stuff.  
I think we just have to be more careful about labeling.   I for one find
that I just delete entire threads because I have no time to look at
them.  I try to look at all of the PAW's, but I only comment when I
really have something to say.  I just don't have the time to comment on
most of them.

The one really important way we all have to deal with this increased
volume, however, is to make sure the subject line is informative.  That
way folks can meaningfully delete threads that they are not interested
in.  


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Too much mail

[Eactivist]

>In a message dated 2/25/2004 12:51:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>So, Marnie,

>Don't leave us.  In fact, you're not allowed to leave.  Not because I say 
so, but because the PDML gods say so.  You're spiritually a member, 
regardless of whether you have any Px equipment or not.  Seriously, I 
truly enjoy and appreciate your contributions to the list, and it would be 
ashamed to lose a valuable member.

Thanks, frank. I wasn't totally serious, of course. And I do have one Takumar 
lens which justifies my continued existence on PDML. But I appreciate the 
kinds words -- A LOT. On the other hand,  truthfully, I was feeling a bit 
rejected, if people were going to get all stringent about "rules" about PAWs. Or I 
wouldn't have mentioned it, even jokingly. Even though I haven't posted any yet. 
I plan to, obviously.

It made me feel a bit rejected, because it felt... well... unwelcoming. 

I seriously question that the PDML really wants to create an unwelcoming 
atmosphere. The PUG is different, and I have no problem with that at all. It's 
more official, on a joint web page that takes time and trouble to set up. And it 
is archived, etc., and is viewable by people all over the Net as the Pentax 
Mailing List Gallery. While PAWs appear only on this list and disappear from the 
list quickly. Totally different parameters.

[snip]



>As for the suggestion that PAWs only be posted on Friday, well, firstly, see 
above re: unmoderated list.  But, I think that if they're limited to Friday, 
there'll be a huge bulge in traffic that day.  Wouldn't it be better to let 
it dribble in during the week, to spread it out?  It would be much less 
obtrusive then, I think.

>As I've said to others off-list, I think that the PAW volume will calm down 
a bit over time.  Firstly, we won't have the big bulge we had over the 
weekend, immediately after the suggestion was made, it will be spread out.  
Secondly, I think it likely that as the novelty wears off, we won't see 
everyone posting every week.

>I think if we give this time, all the kinks will work out.

>I like PAW, and I hope we can keep it going.  Thanks for your indulgence for 
this longish (for me) post.

>cheers,
frank

I agree. Not to mention the fact that For Sale Friday usually occurs on 
Friday (sheesh, wonder why?) and that takes bandwidth on Fridays already.

Now here, frank, I am bouncing ideas off you or just thinking out loud -- 
however, I, personally, think maybe it would be nice if people limited themselves 
to one new photo or two (three max) a week. Simply because there are a lot of 
us, a lot of us would like to look at and/or respond to others' photos, and 
if everyone shares numerous photos under the PAW title, well, then it's a lot 
to look at and respond to. Or attempt to.

People will still share when they have something they really want to share 
without the PAW subject line, anyway. Or they have before.

But since rules are often NOT A GOOD THING, maybe it could be only a general 
suggestion that a PAW actually means only one new photo a week. (Once people 
have gotten past their initial enthusiasm at sharing the photos they haven't 
felt they had a format to share in before -- not "good enough for the PUG" etc.)

In other words, we don't want no steekin rules! 

Again, thanks, frank, I really do appreciate it.

Marnie aka Doe :-)))

Re: Too much mail

[John Francis]

> 
> Thats okay, Chris.  I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head
> to the floor.

What?  Old Dinsy?   Naah - he wouldn't do a thing like that.  Not Dinsy!

Well, maybe just a little bit.

Re: Too much mail

[Peter Alling]

Ann, you don't have to unsubscribe the list will do it for you.

At 09:10 AM 2/24/04, you wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
>   But Ann, Raimo said nothing about the PAW being the
> cause of the list being too busy, did he?  I noticed he pout
> up a link to his photography page as well.
>
>
I guess I feel I have to look if it is a picture
and if it is WHISKEY
or SPORTS CARS I can delete without guilt.  :)
Posting pics to one picture on a site where one
sees the picture only and not
a zillion banner ads would be useful too.
I just can't go look at the pictures myself right
now.  and If I went away
for two days I'd have to unsubscribe because the
server would bounce my mail.
So don't anyone's feelings be hurt if I don't
respond to comments to me
90% of the time I don't know they have been made
until I see someone else
referring to it by chance.
I jsut cant cope kids
have fun
ann
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan  

Re: Too much mail

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Brogden"
Subject: Re: Too much mail


> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Cotty wrote:
>
> > >Who has noticed that the most frequent posts are now from people
> > >complaining about too many posts.
> >
> > I'd like to complain about the people complaining about too many
posts.
>
> That's okay, Cotty.  The people responsible for sacking the people
who
> complained have just been sacked.

Thats okay, Chris.  I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head
to the floor.

WW

Re: Too much mail

[Chris Brogden]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Cotty wrote:

> >Who has noticed that the most frequent posts are now from people
> >complaining about too many posts.
>
> I'd like to complain about the people complaining about too many posts.

That's okay, Cotty.  The people responsible for sacking the people who
complained have just been sacked.

chris

Re: Too much mail

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:53:20 +, Cotty wrote:

> I'd like to complain about the people complaining about too many posts.

There's a penguin on the telly!
Intercourse the penguin!

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Too much mail

[frank theriault]

I'll first address Marnie directly, then make a few general comments WRT 
this thread.

So, Marnie,

Don't leave us.  In fact, you're not allowed to leave.  Not because I say 
so, but because the PDML gods say so.  You're spiritually a member, 
regardless of whether you have any Px equipment or not.  Seriously, I 
truly enjoy and appreciate your contributions to the list, and it would be 
ashamed to lose a valuable member.

General comments:

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think that anyone 
said that we should get rid of OT, or GFM, or Digitalk, or whatever.  I 
think what may have been suggested, is that if list traffic is too high, 
that these sorts of things are just as "list clogging" as anything else, so 
why pick on PAW specifically.  Yes, our wonderfully tangential OT 
discussions are what "makes" this list.  It's how we ~really~ get to know 
each other, and it's in large part how we've become such a close knit 
community.  BUT, if list traffic is high, these rather longish OT threads a 
a large part of it.  It's ironic that so many have suggested restrictions on 
PAW, which is peripherally related to the "raison d'etre" of the list, while 
mostly leaving OT ramblings alone.

Should PAW be Pentax only?

Why?  I have lots and lots of Pentax photos.  I have lots and lots of 
non-Pentax photos.  If I choose to post one photo a week, it's going to jam 
the list just as much no matter what type of camera it was taken with.  
Restricting the equipment will have no impact on traffic, only on what I 
choose.  I totally respect the fact that PUG has such restrictions.  Those 
are the rules.  PUG is largely for "outsiders" to see what we do with our 
Pentax equipment.  But PAW is informal.  It's (I think) about us as 
photographers, not just as Pentax photographers.  It's not just about me 
posting photos, it's about me critiqueing photos.

Now (and I feel very strongly about this), since this is an unmoderated 
list, we can post as many photos as we want.  There is no consensus 
necessary as to what I can post.  That being said, out of respect for the 
list, I'm more than happy to limit my PAW posting to one a week.  I think if 
everyone else does that, PAW traffic will calm down a bit, as some have been 
posting much more than one a week so far - to be expected due to the success 
of this venture.  If anything "special" comes up (like the Ice Race 
yesterday - more photos to come later ) I may post something extra, but 
that would be unusual.

As for the suggestion that PAWs only be posted on Friday, well, firstly, see 
above re: unmoderated list.  But, I think that if they're limited to Friday, 
there'll be a huge bulge in traffic that day.  Wouldn't it be better to let 
it dribble in during the week, to spread it out?  It would be much less 
obtrusive then, I think.

As I've said to others off-list, I think that the PAW volume will calm down 
a bit over time.  Firstly, we won't have the big bulge we had over the 
weekend, immediately after the suggestion was made, it will be spread out.  
Secondly, I think it likely that as the novelty wears off, we won't see 
everyone posting every week.

I think if we give this time, all the kinks will work out.

I like PAW, and I hope we can keep it going.  Thanks for your indulgence for 
this longish (for me) post.

cheers,
frank


"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Too much mail
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:44:05 EST

Well, if you limit it to Pentax equipment, I cannot participate. And maybe 
I
should drop off the list completely since I no longer have any Pentax
equipment and will probably not be getting some. Or getting some any time 
soon.

But I do think PAWs ought to be limited to one photograph a week per 
person,
since it's called "Photograph of the Week."

Whatever Doug decides, I guess.

Personally I like the PAWs a great deal. And I think the overwhelming
response indicates others do as well. It's a nice counter balance to all 
the
technical talk.

Threads like OT English cars I can live without, ergo, I delete them.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

RE: Too much mail

[Amita Guha]

> Frankly, it seems that there are enough people here who like 
> the concept just the way it is.  

I agree. I think the PAW is great the way it is. It has already allowed
me to display a couple of shots here that I couldn't have posted on the
PUG for one reason or another. We always talk about the gear on this
list, or about technique, but we so rarely discuss the results, or what
moves us to shoot, except for once a month when the PUG comes out. This
is a great way to share our common passion. And I think it's great that
it's drawing some lurkers out into the open.

Quite frankly, the endless talks about gear or cars or what have you can
get tedious, but I don't complain about them because that seems to be
what everyone wants to talk about. Likewise, if a lot of people are into
the PAW and you don't like it, just ignore it.

And I agree with Shel or whoever it was who said that it shouldn't be
restricted to just Pentax gear, since we're not hosting it on
PDML-sanctioned web space. 

Amita

Re: Too much mail

[Cotty]

On 24/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>I wonder if the different "personalities" of this list and the EOS list 
>have to do with the fact that nowadays you have to be a bit of a rebel, or 
>perhaps just a curmudgeon, to stick to Pentax while the sheep are flocking 
>to Canon and Nikon.
>John

Fair point.

>
>Who has noticed that the most frequent posts are now from people 
>complaining about too many posts.

I'd like to complain about the people complaining about too many posts.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |   People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads http://www.macads.co.uk

Re: Too much mail

[Eactivist]

>In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:48:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>Sometimes OT gets a little out of hand, but it dies down. You have 
introduced 
this PAW thing which mostly is good. I do think however that the one on the 
Leica list you modeled it after limits photos to those taken with Leica 
equipment. Also they seem to limit it to one photo a week person. You are 
trying 
to open this list to anything, anywhere, anytime, no limits. And then 
snarling 
at the guy who is paying for this list out of his own pocket.

>Like I said, PAW seems like a great idea. But maybe we should keep it to 
Pentax 
equipment, and one shot per person per week on this list. Furthermore, there 
are 
all kinds of sites on the web where you can post photos to be commented on 
and 
no one has ever objected to folks mentioning here that they had a photo on 
one 
they would like comments about.

Well, if you limit it to Pentax equipment, I cannot participate. And maybe I 
should drop off the list completely since I no longer have any Pentax 
equipment and will probably not be getting some. Or getting some any time soon.

But I do think PAWs ought to be limited to one photograph a week per person, 
since it's called "Photograph of the Week."

Whatever Doug decides, I guess.

Personally I like the PAWs a great deal. And I think the overwhelming 
response indicates others do as well. It's a nice counter balance to all the 
technical talk.

Threads like OT English cars I can live without, ergo, I delete them.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

RE: Too much mail

[David Miers]

You missed a couple didn't you... :) there is always the digest version and
reading the posts online sorted already by subject.  This list is plain text
only, thus it doesn't use much bandwidth.  I'm on dialup and I don't have
any problems.  Lots of folks unsubscribe temporarily when their going to be
gone for a bit.  There's filters any which way you want it, 2 clicks and I
can sort and delete a whole subject all at the same time.  I really think
all need to lighten up and go read the instructions on how to fully get the
most out of their email browser.

I for one enjoy the humor and comradery that exist on this list often in OT
posts.  This is a very active list and that's a good thing!  I look forward
to sitting down relaxing for bit checking out what's going on in PDML.
Quiet boring lists don't get it either.  Come on folks, lets fence this bad
humored disgruntled attitude and be decent and considerate of everyone's
opinions and ideas.  If this isn't your thing, maybe you shouldn't be here.
If you have forgotten how to unsubscribe or switch to digest the directions
are on the web site.  

I feel bad for Shel about the nasty emails he is now getting.  If you feel
you need to flame someone, you should be brave enough to do it in public.
If you can't say it in public it probably shouldn't be said.  If I were
Shel, I would strongly be tempted to consider forwarding these nastys to the
list so their true colors would be shown to all.  Although this might be bad
overall for the list and a kill file will take care of them permanently.

Dave

Two solutions;

1 - go modern, get rid of the list and use a www forum and you can have
sections for whatever topic you choose and easy access from anywhere.

2 - mark email headings with OT, DIGITAL, PAW, GENERAL, LENS, BODY, FILM,
etc, so that you can filter incoming email into appropriate folders. Then if
you don't want to see OT or PAW you don't have to look just periodically
delete the contents of the folder.

HTH

Ziggy

Re: Too much mail

[John Forbes]

I wonder if the different "personalities" of this list and the EOS list 
have to do with the fact that nowadays you have to be a bit of a rebel, or 
perhaps just a curmudgeon, to stick to Pentax while the sheep are flocking 
to Canon and Nikon.

John

Who has noticed that the most frequent posts are now from people 
complaining about too many posts.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:31:50 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 24/2/04, A PDML SUBSCRIBER disgorged:

I guess I feel I have to look if it is a picture
and if it is WHISKEY
or SPORTS CARS I can delete without guilt.  :)
Sorry guys, but I am going to have to chime in here - AFAIK, *both* those
threads mentioned above carried 'OT' in the subject line. If you double-
click on a message with 'OT' in the subject line, you deserve everything
you end up reading! From time to time a spurt of OT threads happen, and
okay, it may not be ideal, but the spirit (d'oh) of the list is alive and
well, and long may it remain. Jeees, you should look at the EOS list
sometime - it is unbelievably dull. This list has a life, a great life -
but that life paradoxically enough depends ultimately on one button
DELETE

Cheers,
  Cotty
PS - I am wrong! The whisky thread is not marked OT - apologies. The beer
thread is. The sentiment still stands.
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Too much mail

[graywolf]

A little tact would be good here, Shel. This is Doug's list. You we can do 
without, him we can not.

Sometimes OT gets a little out of hand, but it dies down. You have introduced 
this PAW thing which mostly is good. I do think however that the one on the 
Leica list you modeled it after limits photos to those taken with Leica 
equipment. Also they seem to limit it to one photo a week person. You are trying 
to open this list to anything, anywhere, anytime, no limits. And then snarling 
at the guy who is paying for this list out of his own pocket.

Like I said, PAW seems like a great idea. But maybe we should keep it to Pentax 
equipment, and one shot per person per week on this list. Furthermore, there are 
all kinds of sites on the web where you can post photos to be commented on and 
no one has ever objected to folks mentioning here that they had a photo on one 
they would like comments about.

As for the gearheads here that you so disparage, this is a Pentax list not a 
general photography list despite the fact it is very open and interesting. You 
seem to want to highjack the list for your own purposes. We like you, Shel, but 
maybe you are going a bit too far here.

--

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs
we present here.  So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but
lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs.
Doug Brewer wrote:

At 11:00 PM 2/23/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which
had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about
setting up a social situation amongst users.
Hey now. Bitch all you want about the OT stuff, but lay off GFM. Some of us
have worked very hard to turn the GFM NPW into a premier =photography=
workshop. We have a good time, but we're very serious about the weekend.



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Too much mail

[Cotty]

On 24/2/04, A PDML SUBSCRIBER disgorged:

>I guess I feel I have to look if it is a picture
>and if it is WHISKEY
>or SPORTS CARS I can delete without guilt.  :)

Sorry guys, but I am going to have to chime in here - AFAIK, *both* those
threads mentioned above carried 'OT' in the subject line. If you double-
click on a message with 'OT' in the subject line, you deserve everything
you end up reading! From time to time a spurt of OT threads happen, and
okay, it may not be ideal, but the spirit (d'oh) of the list is alive and
well, and long may it remain. Jeees, you should look at the EOS list
sometime - it is unbelievably dull. This list has a life, a great life -
but that life paradoxically enough depends ultimately on one button

DELETE


Cheers,
  Cotty

PS - I am wrong! The whisky thread is not marked OT - apologies. The beer
thread is. The sentiment still stands.


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

RE: Too much mail

[zoomshot]

Yes, there is too much mail, we now have over 400 per day coming in, that
might be ok for the people that don't work and have time to download and go
through all the posts. I work and in the past week just don't have the time
to go through my email. Just a download, quick look and delete all. With
this volume coming in, if you don't download most days then mail will be
bounced and you will get unsubscribed. 

Two solutions;

1 - go modern, get rid of the list and use a www forum and you can have
sections for whatever topic you choose and easy access from anywhere.

2 - mark email headings with OT, DIGITAL, PAW, GENERAL, LENS, BODY, FILM,
etc, so that you can filter incoming email into appropriate folders. Then if
you don't want to see OT or PAW you don't have to look just periodically
delete the contents of the folder.

HTH

Ziggy 

Re: Too much mail

[Shel Belinkoff]

I'm getting quite a bit of private mail, some it it rather
rude, on this topic.  I cannot believe that something as
simple as the suggestion of posting pics to the list could
generate such controversy and animosity.  There are other,
much nicer messages as well, so that sort of balances the
crap I've received.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Forgive if I misinterpreted your comments ...
> 
> Doug Brewer wrote:
> >
> > At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >
> > >And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs
> > >we present here.  So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but
> > >lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs.
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or
> > posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended
> > it. Get that chip off your shoulder.

Re: Too much mail

[Shel Belinkoff]

Forgive if I misinterpreted your comments ...

Doug Brewer wrote:
> 
> At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> >And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs
> >we present here.  So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but
> >lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs.
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or
> posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended
> it. Get that chip off your shoulder.

Re: Too much mail

[Doug Brewer]

At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs
we present here.  So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but
lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs.
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or 
posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended 
it. Get that chip off your shoulder.

I'll continue to do as I have done on this list since 1996, which is to 
post links to photos as I am moved to do so. I am long past the stage where 
I need constant reassurance that I am a capable photographer, and into that 
stage where I can occasionally offer a little encouragement to our 
"younger" photographers.

In the meantime, I will also view and consider the photos that are being 
presented, yours and others, regardless of the degree of difficulty. 

Re: Too much mail

[Shel Belinkoff]

I was referring to making once a week "ON FRIDAY." i.e.,
limiting the posting to but one designated day per week, as
opposed to once a week on whatever day suits the poster.

Plus, the idea of picture a week was more a reference to the
Leica format than what we might do here, although I feel
that if everyone who wants to participate limits the photos
to one posting per week that would certainly be an
improvement over what we've had thus far: just a couple of
people putting up pictures at random intervals and
interspersed between numerous messages about the minutia of
digital cameras, fast cars and fast women, GFM, and other
such topics, all of which, imo, are just fine here, even
though some can become a bit wearing for those not
interested in such matters.

I suppose I liken your suggestion of posting pics on but one
day of the week similar to someone suggesting that digital
only be discussed on Tuesdays, and that we have a "Whisky
Wednesday."  

Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit
> > discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week
> > Friday event, because they can't handle it.
> 
> Doh, make that...
> 
> I read it as a "picture-a-week", no?

Re: Too much mail

[Shel Belinkoff]

And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs
we present here.  So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but
lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs.

Doug Brewer wrote:
> 
> At 11:00 PM 2/23/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> >I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which
> >had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about
> >setting up a social situation amongst users.
> 
> Hey now. Bitch all you want about the OT stuff, but lay off GFM. Some of us
> have worked very hard to turn the GFM NPW into a premier =photography=
> workshop. We have a good time, but we're very serious about the weekend.

Re: Too much mail

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit
> discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week
> Friday event, because they can't handle it.

Doh, make that...

I read it as a "picture-a-week", no?


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Too much mail

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit
> discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week
> Friday event, because they can't handle it.

You're sounding like a cranky old fart Shel, lighten up, the Friday suggestion 
was only that, and if you were keen to turn this forum into a daily photo 
techniques forum why introduce the concept as PAW. From my stunted technical 
perspective I read it as "a-picture-week", no?


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Too much mail

[Shel Belinkoff]

  But Ann, Raimo said nothing about the PAW being the
cause of the list being too busy, did he?  I noticed he pout
up a link to his photography page as well.

As for sending comments privately, I know that's done, but
it's also valuable to send many of the comments via the list
since that's a good way for some people to learn.  For
example, the discussion about cropping Frank's puppy pic is
a good thing to be public as others can see and participate
in "the making of a final photo."

I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which
had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about
setting up a social situation amongst users.  Or maybe we
should discontinue whisky and car threads, or those stupid
and unintelligible digital threads, or comments about
scrabble, or any personal comments.

Just out of curiosity, what are the threads that are
important to you that you don't want to miss?

For the first time in a while there is something going on
that's of real interest to a certain number of list members
that have no or little interest in a lot of other topics
that go on here.

So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit
discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week
Friday event, because they can't handle it.  Well, to use
the  sane words that are used when people have complained
about other types of threads: Use the delete key.  At least
those that are participating in the PAW have been courteous
enough to include PAW in the subject line to allow for easy
filtering or deleting.  That's more than can be said for
many who post lots of off topic comments about other, non
photographic related subjects.

Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> 
> Raimo K wrote:
> >
> > PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
> > difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for awhile.
> > All the best!
> > Raimo K
> > Personal photography homepage at:
> > http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> I second that --
> Perhaps some of the comments on PAWS could be sent
> privately ???

> I really don't want to unsubscribe because there
> are a few important threads
> here I don't want to miss but I'm overwhelmed  -

Re: Too much mail

[frank theriault]

Bruce,

And, if I misread your post (I really should go back and read it, eh?  
), then I apologize, too.

I think what I actually did was read someone's comment on your post, and 
only quickly skimmed yours -  a bad practice, to be sure!

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Too much mail
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:12:41 -0800
Hello frank,

My post was only meant to indicate that PAW had increased the posts
and that as long as PAW was in the subject, that it would be easy to
deal with.  It was not meant to say quit posting PAW stuff.
Sorry if that was how it came across.

--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, February 23, 2004, 7:53:56 PM, you wrote:

ft> With the greatest of respect to Bruce, Rob and Ann (and anyone else who
ft> might be farther down in this thread - I'm just stopping here to 
reply):

ft> I think I've deleted about twice as many posts about English sports 
cars,
ft> whiskey, Scotch, English beer, Dodge Chargers, and things that have
ft> absolutely nothing to do with photography whatsoever, as I have PAW 
posts,
ft> or the comments.

ft> Why pick on PAW, and complain that it's clogging the list?  It has 
something
ft> to do with photography.

ft> I don't recall many complaining that ever since the *istD has been 
released
ft> (and indeed long before it's release), that it, DSLR's and peripheral
ft> digitalia have absolutely dominated the list.  Why so few complaints?
ft> Because that's what the list's about, that's why.

ft> Well, it's also about taking photos.  If PAW wasn't popular, we 
wouldn't
ft> have seen such popular support for it (meaning: all the posts).

ft> People have been pretty good about prefixing posts with "PAW".  It 
would be
ft> pretty easy to just filter it out, no?

ft> I'm really at a loss here.  I personally have no problem with all the 
way OT
ft> threads that have dominated here over the last couple of days or so.  
But,
ft> if one wants to cut down on traffic, I think we know where to look.

ft> cheers,
ft> frank
ft> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The 
pessimist
ft> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer



>>From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Too much mail
>>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:52:04 -0500
>>
>>Raimo K wrote:
>> >
>> > PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
>> > difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for
>>awhile.
>> > All the best!
>> > Raimo K
>> > Personal photography homepage at:
>> > http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>>
>>I second that --
>>Perhaps some of the comments on PAWS could be sent
>>privately ???
>>
>>I really don't want to unsubscribe because there
>>are a few important threads
>>here I don't want to miss but I'm overwhelmed  -
>>The Scrabble list has been
>>extra talky these days, too and I'm falling way
>>behind .
>>
>>I have trouble viewing a lot of the PAWS and some
>>of them are on sights that
>>are not user friendly for those of us with older
>>browsers...
>>
>>annsan who has missed a lot here lately
>>
ft> _
ft> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
ft> 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca



_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Too much mail

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello frank,

My post was only meant to indicate that PAW had increased the posts
and that as long as PAW was in the subject, that it would be easy to
deal with.  It was not meant to say quit posting PAW stuff.

Sorry if that was how it came across.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Monday, February 23, 2004, 7:53:56 PM, you wrote:

ft> With the greatest of respect to Bruce, Rob and Ann (and anyone else who
ft> might be farther down in this thread - I'm just stopping here to reply):

ft> I think I've deleted about twice as many posts about English sports cars,
ft> whiskey, Scotch, English beer, Dodge Chargers, and things that have
ft> absolutely nothing to do with photography whatsoever, as I have PAW posts,
ft> or the comments.

ft> Why pick on PAW, and complain that it's clogging the list?  It has something
ft> to do with photography.

ft> I don't recall many complaining that ever since the *istD has been released
ft> (and indeed long before it's release), that it, DSLR's and peripheral
ft> digitalia have absolutely dominated the list.  Why so few complaints?
ft> Because that's what the list's about, that's why.

ft> Well, it's also about taking photos.  If PAW wasn't popular, we wouldn't
ft> have seen such popular support for it (meaning: all the posts).

ft> People have been pretty good about prefixing posts with "PAW".  It would be
ft> pretty easy to just filter it out, no?

ft> I'm really at a loss here.  I personally have no problem with all the way OT
ft> threads that have dominated here over the last couple of days or so.  But,
ft> if one wants to cut down on traffic, I think we know where to look.

ft> cheers,
ft> frank

ft> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
ft> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




>>From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Too much mail
>>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:52:04 -0500
>>
>>Raimo K wrote:
>> >
>> > PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
>> > difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for
>>awhile.
>> > All the best!
>> > Raimo K
>> > Personal photography homepage at:
>> > http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>>
>>I second that --
>>Perhaps some of the comments on PAWS could be sent
>>privately ???
>>
>>I really don't want to unsubscribe because there
>>are a few important threads
>>here I don't want to miss but I'm overwhelmed  -
>>The Scrabble list has been
>>extra talky these days, too and I'm falling way
>>behind .
>>
>>I have trouble viewing a lot of the PAWS and some
>>of them are on sights that
>>are not user friendly for those of us with older
>>browsers...
>>
>>annsan who has missed a lot here lately
>>

ft> _
ft> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
ft> 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Too much mail

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I'd second Frank's opinion. I must say that now I delete *istD related
and OT threads with much lighter hand so to say. But then I call my
wife and when she can we sit together though PAW messages and enjoy
it.

I do agree however that PAW has to be exactly that PAWeek . What I
mean is like:
1. One picture please.
2. Per week please.

No offence, but I think that since many people are involved perhaps it
would be a good idea to let everyone have their fair share of other
list members attention.

Boris

Re: Too much mail

[Ann Sanfedele]

Raimo K wrote:
> 
> PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
> difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for awhile.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

I second that --
Perhaps some of the comments on PAWS could be sent
privately ???  
 
I really don't want to unsubscribe because there
are a few important threads
here I don't want to miss but I'm overwhelmed  -
The Scrabble list has been
extra talky these days, too and I'm falling way
behind .

I have trouble viewing a lot of the PAWS and some
of them are on sights that
are not user friendly for those of us with older
browsers...

annsan who has missed a lot here lately

Re: Too much mail

[Bruce Dayton]

I tend to agree - while PAW has some niceties, it has generated a
large amount of traffic.  As long as the Subject has that nice, big
PAW in front of it, at least it can be handled easily.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Monday, February 23, 2004, 1:00:08 PM, you wrote:

RK> PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
RK> difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for awhile.
RK> All the best!
RK> Raimo K
RK> Personal photography homepage at:
RK> http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

Too much mail

[Raimo K]

PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have
difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for awhile.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho