Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 23:37:19 +0000 Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: cross-posting Robert Malecki wrote: > > Richard and Nick, but also everybody on these lists. THIS IS A VERY > IMPORTANT ISSUE! SO PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE SHORT VERSION OF THIS LETTER. I > THINK WE SHOULD THINK BIG AND TRY TO REACH OUT AND GRAB PEOPLE BY THE ASS > RATHER THEN TALK ABOUT THE HORRORS OF CROSSPOSTING! Bob, I don't think you should make assumptions, especially those implicit in the above. To counterpose "grabbing people by the ass" with being concerned about garbage & cross-posting is a mistake. I'm decidedly in favour of grabbing people, and using the available technology to promote Marxism & organise workers. That is the root of my concern about cross-posting, etc. NOT a selfish consideration about my on phone bill. I was encouraged to read MI in addition to MG, which implied to me that there would be different material on it. The only difference I have noticed is the heavy-handedness of those you referred to in your original post - the kind of behaviour I thought might have lapsed with the change in list structure, and that I hoped to avoid. If that is the only benefit that accrues from subbing to both lists, then I would prefer to stick to MG. BUT I don't want to miss anything! Just as receiving 300 messages a day is off-putting / impossible for some people, so is receiving 300 messages a day when they are in fact 150 messages twice. I agree that Usenet is worse. For that reason I do not participate in any newsgroup discussions, and rarely read them. I get to read my mail after a full day at work, and an evening doing 'real' politics / cooking / etc, which usually means 11.00pm plus, and cannot afford to spend hours reading duplicate messages. Nor, I expect, can many others. Those who can connect whilst 'at work' or who have work which implies some freedom to organise their own time, eg in academic circles may operate differently. But workers on the whole don't have these freedoms. If we want to attract working class activists into our discussions we have to find ways of making them accessible. I can see the idea of a restricted posting list. In that sense I am in favour of such a thing. I thought that was the purpose of the digests. It appears I am mistaken. If we have to have a list with limited posting rights, and one that is open, why not then have every message in MI copied to MG? That way those of us who want all the details can have MG, and those who want conciseness can use MI. Alternatively, it seems it is possible (by sending copies, rather than originals, to the 'other' list) to ensure that people only receive one copy, even if they sub to both lists. It does not seem to much to ask that we discipline ourselves to operate in such a way that reduces the costs / time involved for each other. Besides which, Bob, in sniping at Richard worrying about his on-line costs, have you considered how difficult it might be for a socialist working class activist in a less developed country than Sweden to get access to the Internet? Richard, you & I might get hours of fun for only £10 a month (or equivalent), but I guess some people have to fork out considerably more for their access to MI - we should strive to make it worth their while. > I think that we should all get over our personal turf thinking in regards to > lists and think about not less or crossposting but more and more > crossposting to a larger and larger public outside of these comfortable > little places where a lot of people put chuminess before class struggle.. Sending the same message over and over again doesn't necessarily win the hearts and minds of the masses. It certainly won't encourage them to subscribe to MG if they're already getting half the posts eight times over elsewhere, will it? Regards, Nick --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005