[Peace-discuss] peace-discuss saturation

[jgeo61 at comcast.net]

I agree with you Bob and I very much support the expansion of the opportunities. I was also curious when the last time the address list have been reviewed to see how many people are still actually interested in the service. 

Joy George 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Illyes" <illyes at uiuc.edu> 
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:11:40 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [Peace-discuss] peace-discuss saturation 

The main problem with peace-discuss is not the variety of views expressed, 
in my opinion, but the volume of traffic, most of which is of no interest 
to the vast majority of folks on the listserv. 

Perhaps a solution would be to add some selections to the AWARE web site. 
This could include blogs/websites of Matt Murrey, Carl Estabrook, Wayne 
Johnson, CAN, etc. etc. 

AWARE working groups could also set up their own listservs on chambana.net 
for specialized discussions, which could be listed on the AWARE web site. 

Perhaps this would cut back on the barroom brawls that have become a 
feature of peace-discuss, and make it useful without making banishment from 
the list of too-frequent posters a temptation. 

The IMC occasionally has a problem with disputes erupting into the 
organization-wide listserv. We move them back into working-group lists when 
this happens, but not before we annoy a lot of people who have no interest 
in the dispute. 

Bob 

_______________________________________________ 
Peace-discuss mailing list 
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090909/eae0328f/attachment.html