Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
I think the simplest answer to the question why (only) 557 is that most of us have migrated over to the Track and Field News Message Board, which really satisfies every need that the t-and-f listserv ever did, does more, and does it better. The real question is why the 557 of us are still here, and in my case inertia is part of the answer, the other part being that as long as there are a few die-hards like Roger who post valuable things here and not on the TFN site, I have a reason to stick around. Bob H [EMAIL PROTECTED] (list-related) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (general correspondence)
Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
...and does it better. That's a matter of opinion. I preferred the old list, and I currently spend very little time on the TF News website because of the web-based format. I can't stand all that clicking forward and backward and (sometimes slow) loading of pages that involves. E-mail is quicker, easier, and cleaner. Kurt Bray Bob Hersh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Sent by:Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc .uoregon.edut-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject Re: t-and-f: Why 557? 05/24/2006 06:59 AM Please respond to Bob Hersh [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the simplest answer to the question why (only) 557 is that most of us have migrated over to the Track and Field News Message Board, which really satisfies every need that the t-and-f listserv ever did, does more, and does it better. The real question is why the 557 of us are still here, and in my case inertia is part of the answer, the other part being that as long as there are a few die-hards like Roger who post valuable things here and not on the TFN site, I have a reason to stick around. Bob H [EMAIL PROTECTED] (list-related) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (general correspondence) This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
RE: t-and-f: Why 557?
I can't stand all that clicking forward and backward and (sometimes slow) loading of pages that involves. The poor dear. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:23 AM To: Bob Hersh Cc: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: Why 557? ...and does it better. That's a matter of opinion. I preferred the old list, and I currently spend very little time on the TF News website because of the web-based format. I can't stand all that clicking forward and backward and (sometimes slow) loading of pages that involves. E-mail is quicker, easier, and cleaner. Kurt Bray
RE: t-and-f: Why 557?
The poor dear. Here's a better description of the problem: I agree, Kurt. One has to spend a lot of time checking dozens of different forum topics to get all the news and comments, then the next time one wishes to check, you have to go through it all again. No way to easily see only what you haven't already seen. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
Apologies if this comes through twice. Roger, try asking the board a question-my guess is that you will get an answer a lot quicker. Kurt, if you were to familiarize yourself with the board and all its functions(you strike me as a pretty smart guy, so it wouldn't take you long), I think you would find that your objections are not valid. This complaint, for example, is solved by using the feature View posts since your last visit. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The poor dear. Here's a better description of the problem: I agree, Kurt. One has to spend a lot of time checking dozens of different forum topics to get all the news and comments, then the next time one wishes to check, you have to go through it all again. No way to easily see only what you haven't already seen.
Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
Kurt, if you were to familiarize yourself with the board and all its functions(you strike me as a pretty smart guy, so it wouldn't take you long), I think you would find that your objections are not valid. I have familiarized myself with it. That's how I know it's a big pain in the butt. With e-mail all the information and commentary was right there in one place instead of spread all over dozens of threads. And I only needed to move forward through the in-box. No Back button needed. No need to interrupt my e-mail work and open a web browser. No slow-loading pages. You could easily spell-check your post. It was all quick and easy. But as with most things, there is no system so useful that someone won't wreck it by trying to improve it. Since I now get far less track information on-line than I used to, I've gone back to reading the TF News magazine more attentively -- which, now that I think about it, was possibly their hope and plan in taking over the on-line track community in the first place. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have familiarized myself with it. With all due respect, obviously not completely. If you would have, you wouldn't have passed on this illegitimate complaint: I agree, Kurt. One has to spend a lot of time checking dozens of different forum topics to get all the news and comments, then the next time one wishes to check, you have to go through it all again. No way to easily see only what you haven't already seen. I have explained how this issue can be overcome. It's difficult to believe that you have thoroughly familiarized yourself with all the functions. If you had, you would have told this lister why he or she were wrong instead of trying to make your point with it by passing it on to the list just because it reinforced your perception. Sorry. I could respond point by point but you seem to have made up your mind. It's kind of surprising and unfortunate, actually.
Re: t-and-f: Why 557?
OK, now Roger has made me curious too. Where did the triple jump come from? Tom On May 23, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Roger Ruth wrote: Thanks to Ed, Travis, Drew, Tom, Wayne and Trey, and thanks again to those who responded off-list, for their very enlightening replies to my question Why 1500m, asking why this distance was selected as the metric mile equivalent and what are today's usual measures in high school distance races. I was reminded of a principal reason I have appreciated the t-and-f list over the years. I think it must be an important one for all of the 557 of us who have remained subscribers despite the decline in list activity: specifically, the usefulness of the list as a resource for answers to questions we may have about the sport we love. Google is a great resource, too, but a search for 1500 meters returned 636,000 references; a search for 1500 meters origins returned none. Presumably the answer to my question about why 1500 meters was chosen can be found among those 636,000 references, but even retired geezers like me have limits on how much time they can spend at the computer. How much easier, to send one letter to 557 knowledgeable people and get the answers I'm looking for in depth. Thanks again!
