I did rather wonder if that had been what Grant had meant.
> A fuller understanding would require academic exposure (I'm
>on that track) or a personal relationship with an experienced
practitioner.
I like the blance here of Grant's comment. But I think that it is possible
to attain a reasonable level of ability without an academic environment and
without an experienced practicioner. The level of expertise outside one's
own experience that this list offers is of great help to both experienced
practicioners and entry level persons. This is why I am concerned that so
many people seem to be leaving.
> The *somebody* should have checked to see if the server and software
>would support the requirements of a list such as this.
As somebody to whom the change made very little difference I fail to see
what all the fuss is about. Presumably USASK was the only computer and
Gord the only person who were ready willing and able. But the change,while
not unexpected, must have come as a surprise to most of us.
>With regards to the *inner circle* versus the *lurkers* attitude.
>What a snotty attitude!
I suspect that this may be a false inference just as false inferences
appear to have been taken from Grants original posting. But if
'snottiness' can be inferred this could be a reason for such a number of
resignations. Or is it just the time of year when persons start to think
seriously about examinations.
> To do that, you must
>attract persons who are, relative to yourselves, ignorant of the craft.
>Hopefully, exposure to your more knowledgable conversations will elicit in
>those persons a desire to become involved at some level -- perhaps a
>practitioners, perhaps as buyers, perhaps only as non-involved, but
>gallery-going, well-wishers. To refer to them as *lurkers* will
discourage
>that involvement and ultimately defeat the broader goals of the forum. If
>you want an exclusive club, set up a private e-mail network.
As somebody who has only been wired up for a year I took 'lurker' to be the
standard jargon for someone who wants to listen but not say much for
whatever reason. I did not take the word to have a deleterious connotation
as 'lurkers' must make up eighty per cent of subscribers. In effect they
are the backbone of the list. Without wishing to get into another 'names'
discussion, perhaps 'readers' might carry less risk of misinterpretation.
I hope that Grant stays with us.
Terry King
<