Re: TECH: Why this low-tech forum?
|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 3, 2004, 23:03|
Gary Shannon wrote at 2004-05-03 13:41:27 (-0700)
> --- Roberto Suarez Soto <ask4it@...> wrote:
> > <delurk>
> > On May/03/2004, Felix Ahlner wrote:
> > > been any talks about a "real" list like phpBB or
> > such?
> > Something that pretends to replace a mailing list but you can
> > only use from a web browser is not "real", IMHO. I don't know
> > what mail program you use, but I'm *far* more comfortable using
> > mine that having to point-and-click my way through the list :-)
> > </delurk>
> > --
> > Roberto Suarez Soto
> Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if this mailing list were
> impressed on clay tablets, baked, and delivered quarterly by ox
> On the other hand, BBS forums have the huge advantage of being able
> to segregate everything into specific categories and topics. In
> truth, as I'm sure I said once several years ago, I'd MUCH rather
> this were a BBS forum than this stone-age mailing list format. But
> alas, there are always those who, like Mark Twain, are in favor of
> progress but uncomfortable with change.
HTML conlanging forums already exist - see Mark Rosenfelder's Zompist
bboard, for example:
If you prefer such a system, go use one.
But I've used BBS systems, and I've used mailing lists, and mailing
lists get my vote. Email is locally archivable. Mail clients are not
limited to the text-entry capabilities of browsers. Even the defects
of mailing lists are advantages - the higher cost of participation
tends to encourage a higher signal to noise ratio*. The posting limit
prevents the volume of posts from growing so high that you can't at
least glance at every post - which again helps to maintain the quality
of the discourse.
* I know, but on a BBS it'd be even worse.