I'm definitely in favor of one list, and yes, list-serve ettiquette demands
deleting everything except what is relevant to your post. Also,
remembering to make the subject line actually reflect the discussion is
key, although I'm not really happy to see discussions bifurcated when
someone makes a
I totally agree w/ Chrissy, John, & Hilton,
Please delete everything that has already been posted which is not
absolutely essential to your new post.
Thank you everyone,
Paul
WebContent is the SharedWeight list that is dedicated to discussing web
development issues for dance organizations and performers.
Chris
On 5/9/2012 5:49 PM, Chris Lahey wrote:
I would like to know what the WebContent list is. I'm unfamiliar with
that list.
here here!!!
Laurie
--- On Thu, 5/10/12, Hilton Baxter wrote:
> From: Hilton Baxter
> Date: Thursday, May 10, 2012, 1:49 PM
> I agree with the comments of John
> Sweeney (copied below - after deleting unneeded material).
>
> Hilton Baxter
> 607 651-8768
>
<>
> > By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE
I agree with the comments of John Sweeney (copied below - after deleting
unneeded material).
Hilton Baxter
607 651-8768
> I would rather have a single list.
>
> I would also love to cut down on volume.
> But not by reducing the number of posts.
> By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE
AMEN to what John said below. Especially the last sentence.
If you are a person who habitually sends the entire history at the end of your
SW posts, and there's no compelling reason for you to include all those lines,
PLEASE consider taking a few seconds to only include the relevant parts - fo
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Lindsay Morris wrote:
> I'd vote for one list. Easy enough to search for the title if a dance there.
Only if you know the title. Wouldn't work if you just want to browse
for dances.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Chris Weiler (home)
wrote:
> So I would like to know is if there are many people who would _not_
> subscribe to a choreography list?
One advantage of a separate list is it would be easier if one is
searching the archives for dances.
Too much volume! The discussions are mostly useful to me although I
don't participate a lot. But so much traffic lately is just
overwhelming.
Thanks!
On May 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Chris Weiler (home) wrote:
Hello SW callers,
I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
I would rather have a single list.
I would also love to cut down on volume.
But not by reducing the number of posts.
By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them.
Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press
"Send".
There is one other crucial step. Before pr
Two lists! Digests can get overwhelming, and imho if a person is less
interested in choreography discussions they're more likely to "tune out"
the list when choreography discussions overtake other topics. "Signal to
noise ratio" is a good way of putting it. I would subscribe to both but i
think hav
Hi Chris and All,
If there was a separate choreography list, I'd want to be on it.
Having a separate list might encourage dance writers to share more
often. But what about questions about a particular non-new dance, or
requesting ideas for an event? Does that get relegated to the
cho
A good alternative.
Laurie
West MI
--- On Wed, 5/9/12, Andrea Nettleton wrote:
> From: Andrea Nettleton
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
> To: "Caller's discussion list"
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 5:33 PM
> One method of having o
t;
> Laurie
> West MI
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/9/12, Bob Green wrote:
>
>> From: Bob Green
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
>> To: "Caller's discussion list"
>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 4:16 PM
>> If we are going to p
Hi Chris,
I would go with whatever is picked - either way would
be of interest to me (either separate list or integrating
it into this one).
Thanks!
Patricia
Patricia Campbell
Newtown, CT
On May 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM, "Chris Weiler (home)"
> wrote:
>
> > Hello SW callers,
> >
> > I finally ca
I echo Bob's sentiment.
Laurie
West MI
--- On Wed, 5/9/12, Bob Green wrote:
> From: Bob Green
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
> To: "Caller's discussion list"
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 4:16 PM
> If we are going to post and v
>
> -Original Message-
> From: callers-boun...@sharedweight.net
> [mailto:callers-boun...@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Mortland, Jo
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:46 PM
> To: Caller's discussion list
> Cc: Shared Weight
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo l
One method of having one list, but keeping the new dance discussions sorted is
the old OT trick, but instead of OT we would use ND (New Dance), or some other
designator, as a preface to the name of the dance under discussion. That being
the subject of the email, anyone not interested could simp
If we are going to post and vet new dances, I am quite certain a separate
list would be preferable. Our little caller's group here in Missouri would
alone double the word volume of the current list. While the total volume
would be the same, I think there would be distinct advantages to having the
d
t;To: Shared Weight
>Subject: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
>
>Hello SW callers,
>
>I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
>starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all
>callers would want to be on both lists, so
rs-boun...@sharedweight.net
> [mailto:callers-boun...@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Mortland, Jo
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:46 PM
> To: Caller's discussion list
> Cc: Shared Weight
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
>
> I would rather have two li
: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
I would rather have two lists.
Jo Mortland
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM, "Chris Weiler (home)"
wrote:
> Hello SW callers,
>
> I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
> starting a n
discussion list
Cc: Shared Weight
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
I would rather have two lists.
Jo Mortland
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM, "Chris Weiler (home)"
wrote:
> Hello SW callers,
>
I would rather have two lists.
Jo Mortland
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM, "Chris Weiler (home)"
wrote:
> Hello SW callers,
>
> I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
> starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all
> call
I'd rather keep it on this list until there's enough traffic to
support another list. There's a minimum amount of traffic needed to
keep a list alive.
Anyone remember WebContent?
Dead for six months after a brief flurry of initial posts.
Musicians?
Just has the rare press release.
And those we
olume doesn't really
bother me - the more info the better!
Perry
--- On Wed, 5/9/12, Chris Weiler (home) wrote:
From: Chris Weiler (home)
Subject: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
To: "Shared Weight"
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Wednesday, May 9, 201
Hello SW callers,
I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all
callers would want to be on both lists, so why not have them be the same
list? My only answer that I could think of why not is if the calle
27 matches
Mail list logo
