Re: Extraneous Messages

["USA::MU17692" <MU17692%USA -dot- decnet -at- USAV01 -dot- GLAXO -dot- COM>]

Jan Boomsliter <boom -at- CADENCE -dot- COM> wrote:

>People complain about the quantity of messages
>coming in daily.  Others respond that deleting
>unwanted messages is not a burden.

>People continue to ask others to not send private
>and other inappropriate messages to the list.
>Others respond with a query regarding the
>operational readiness of their delete buttons.

>People offer explanations for why they have a
>problem managing the horde of messages.  Others
>respond ....

>I think it is time for the people who don't think
>there is a problem to consider the possibility
>that they are wrong.

So what is the point here? What is the "problem?"
Does Jan argue that there are too many
extraneous messages?

Time for a reality check. TECHWR-L is relatively
disciplined. While a discussion about "mom" or
"in" versus "on" doesn't interest me, it obviously
interests others. I'm certainly not going to bitch
about them.

I've got news for the people who think there's
too much mail. It's likely going to increase! I
encourage my technical communicator colleagues
to subscribe to this list. In fact, I show them how.

If there is a problem at all, it's people
whining about postings that don't interest them.
Eric's doing a fine job as TECHWR-L referee. I
trust his judgment on matters of TECHWR-L
content. And if I have a complaint, I post it
to the relevant individuals, this mail being
an obvious exception.

I think the consensus is that Bonni, et al should
continue to post notices about STC meetings,
videotapes, job postings, etc.

I look forward to a long and fruitful
subscription to TECHWR-L. I thank Eric and all of
my colleagues who make this Internet endeavor fun
and fascinating.

Sincerely,

Michael Andrew Uhl (uhl~m -at- glaxo -dot- com)
Glaxo Inc. Research Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC