Re: the ASA email list

Ok, I am going over my limit today. It seems that everytime something happens, the
knee-jerk reaction is to reduce the number of emails that can be sent to the list.
That is nothing more than restricting discussion. It is bad, bad bad. WE started
with an unlimited number of posts per day but restricted it. If any number of
posts was considered bad, and a limit of 4 better, and a limit of 2 per day even
better than 4 per day, why not ZERO per day as the perfect listserve? We seem to
be going in the direction of those who want less and less discussion. People who
dont' want discussion, shouldn't be here telling others not to talk.

If we were not using such an antiquated system and were using a web based approach
like Theologyweb does NO ONE has to get emails. You log into the web, see the
topics you want to look at and then click on the link. If someone wants to read
only 5 posts per day, so be it, that is all they have to read. But if someone else
wants the wild west, they too can have their wish.

Unfortunately, if memory serves me right we apparently voted against a modern
system last year (amazing that a bunch of aging scientists would vote against new
technology). So we are stuck with a system where emails are sent out.

If we aren't going to come into the 20th century and we want to create a 2 post per
day list, then please create a more interesting one where there is no limit and
debate can proceed unhindered by those who think less debate is better. Those who
don't want to read emails don't have to. They can be on the dull list.

As to the topics, I don't like the politics or the gay topics. I simply don't open
them. Others see issues and I see no reason to stop them.

On Fri Jun 9 17:58 , "Ted Davis" sent:

>I second Loren's suggestion.
>
>I do not presently participate in any other lists, and the kinds of lists
>that interest me are not those in which ordinary bantor/exchanges take
>place. It would be lots of fun to have something like the "old" ASA list
>back, with lots of very serious discussion of science/faith issues and very
>little else.
>
>Ted
>
Received on Fri Jun 9 22:13:12 2006