Discussion: View Thread

> On Behalf Of Robert Bacal
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:14 AM

> First, there are differences in the way people look at the internet.

/clipped/

Some also see it as an avenue for self-promotion to generate either traffic or
revenue for web sites, book sales or seminars, to build brand identification as
it were.

Kind of means that there might be people using the Internet for different
purposes within the same small community!

Mass Comm theory recognizes this as the user gratification theory. That is
individual users determine what content they desire to attend to and how it will
be used at an individual level. This model of usage is market driven instead of
allowing select individuals to determine content for the community at-large

The previous model, AKA "magic bullet" theory of communication, is still
prevalent today. Magic bullet theory can be boiled down to the belief that "one
message results in one convert" and is based in hierarchical power and coercion
instead of intellectual merit, value and persuasion.

I still see evidence of this model operating in organizations. I suspect that
it will crumble and fall away as the modern mass communication becomes available
at the work station desktop. And "reach" becomes more important than
hierarchical position. Reach is the circle of influence to be heard or
read--akin to legitimate leadership over positional leadership.

I will use myself for an example. Let's say I find a link to a team
communication training seminar and decide to send it on to the various list I am
on (seven lists) resulting in a potential audience of over 17,000 people. My
reach would be how many people responded to the posting. I had two people
report that their web hits went up 1500+ with in a week of my posting their
links (only five lists in this particular instance).

With little research in this area as a benchmark, I am unsure if that is a
substantial reach for an individual or not. It does shed some light on how I am
serving the interest of individual listserv members. It also makes me keenly
aware of my responsibilities when servicing a community that large.

By way of refutation: Allow me to present a figurative analogy to illustrate my
position here.

The limitation of contributions based solely on a cross-posting criteria that
inconveniences a few people who share similar listserv subscriptions is like
saying that an newspaper article from the Associated Press cannot be publish in
the Dallas Morning News because it was also published in the New York Times.
Now, if I happen to subscribe to both papers, I would call one or the other
editors and demand that duplicate articles be stopped because I am getting them
twice.

So, if the editor of the paper follows my complaint, it seems to that the
readership for one of the papers will be deprived of information due to one
person getting duplicated articles found in another newspaper. Since few people
read more than one newspaper these days and virtually never cover-to-cover,
essentially, Mr. Bacal is making the argument here. Personally, I find this
kind of reasoning more than a little bizarre. This is a particularly loathsome
form of censorship known as prior constraint--when the vocal few determine the
information necessary for the many.

Although, frankly, I don't trust the underlying motives as far as I can toss a
50-ton weight, I did want to lend my perspective on the question at hand. I
wish now I had kept all the compliments I receive for posting the links, humor
and thought chocolates.

Of course, I will abide by the decisions of the moderator. Still, a better
solution is a suggestion that Mr. Bacal set his filters to ignore future
cross-postings from my activities.


ICQ #26317826
__________________________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX 79605
mailto:Choragus@email.com
Home Page: http://home.att.net/~Choragus

Well said Dutch, thanks.
Lets all take a deep breath, look out the window for a minute, and
contemplate something greater than ourselves.
Cheers,
Chris

At 03:22 PM 04/16/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Robert Bacal
>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:14 AM
>
>> First, there are differences in the way people look at the internet.
>
>/clipped/
>
> Some also see it as an avenue for self-promotion to generate either traffic or
>revenue for web sites, book sales or seminars, to build brand identification as
>it were.
>
> Kind of means that there might be people using the Internet for different
>purposes within the same small community!
>
> Mass Comm theory recognizes this as the user gratification theory. That is
>individual users determine what content they desire to attend to and how it
will
>be used at an individual level. This model of usage is market driven
instead of
>allowing select individuals to determine content for the community at-large
>
> The previous model, AKA "magic bullet" theory of communication, is still
>prevalent today. Magic bullet theory can be boiled down to the belief that
"one
>message results in one convert" and is based in hierarchical power and coercion
>instead of intellectual merit, value and persuasion.
>
> I still see evidence of this model operating in organizations. I suspect that
>it will crumble and fall away as the modern mass communication becomes
available
>at the work station desktop. And "reach" becomes more important than
>hierarchical position. Reach is the circle of influence to be heard or
>read--akin to legitimate leadership over positional leadership.
>
> I will use myself for an example. Let's say I find a link to a team
>communication training seminar and decide to send it on to the various list
I am
>on (seven lists) resulting in a potential audience of over 17,000 people. My
>reach would be how many people responded to the posting. I had two people
>report that their web hits went up 1500+ with in a week of my posting their
>links (only five lists in this particular instance).
>
> With little research in this area as a benchmark, I am unsure if that is a
>substantial reach for an individual or not. It does shed some light on how
I am
>serving the interest of individual listserv members. It also makes me keenly
>aware of my responsibilities when servicing a community that large.
>
> By way of refutation: Allow me to present a figurative analogy to
illustrate my
>position here.
>
> The limitation of contributions based solely on a cross-posting criteria that
>inconveniences a few people who share similar listserv subscriptions is like
>saying that an newspaper article from the Associated Press cannot be publish in
>the Dallas Morning News because it was also published in the New York Times.
>Now, if I happen to subscribe to both papers, I would call one or the other
>editors and demand that duplicate articles be stopped because I am getting them
>twice.
>
> So, if the editor of the paper follows my complaint, it seems to that the
>readership for one of the papers will be deprived of information due to one
>person getting duplicated articles found in another newspaper. Since few
people
>read more than one newspaper these days and virtually never cover-to-cover,
>essentially, Mr. Bacal is making the argument here. Personally, I find this
>kind of reasoning more than a little bizarre. This is a particularly loathsome
>form of censorship known as prior constraint--when the vocal few determine the
>information necessary for the many.
>
> Although, frankly, I don't trust the underlying motives as far as I can toss a
>50-ton weight, I did want to lend my perspective on the question at hand. I
>wish now I had kept all the compliments I receive for posting the links, humor
>and thought chocolates.
>
> Of course, I will abide by the decisions of the moderator. Still, a better
>solution is a suggestion that Mr. Bacal set his filters to ignore future
>cross-postings from my activities.
>
>
>ICQ #26317826
>__________________________________
>Great Optimism,
>
>Dutch Driver
>Abilene, TX 79605
>mailto:Choragus@email.com
>Home Page: http://home.att.net/~Choragus
>
.....................................................................
Christopher Pratt, EdD
Director, Career Services and Preprofessional Advising
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
voice: 617-253-4733 fax: 617-253-8457
cpratt@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/career/www http://web.mit.edu/cpratt

"The goal is not perfection, but self-reflection."

"Leadership is not a spectator sport"

"MIT.....science and technology in the service of humanity"

"We are all a work in progress" Hagar the Horrible

"Those who would purchase a little bit of security
with the sacrifice of liberty, deserve neither security nor liberty"
Benjamin Franklin
.....................................................................

> On Behalf Of Robert Bacal
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 11:38 AM

> You seem to be spending a good deal of effort defending yourself, but
> I haven't commented on the value of your posts (although others have
> both pro and con). I asked a simple question: Could I do what you do
> in terms of posts? Is it ok to do that? Seemed like a reasonable
> polite question to me. Then all heck breaks loose.

Although...on the list, its seems to run more pro than con. Doesn't it?

> I got one definitive answer: The moderator on teamnet has indicated
> that No, neither you or I can do that. I got one partial answer from
> another moderator, and on three lists where cross-posts are common,
> some discussion has ensued.
>
> This really isn't about you, Dutch and I'm not sure why you feel
> compelled to mention the value of your posts here, but apologize for
> sending some of them on the mgtdev ed list.

> It's all really confusing.

So, allow me to interject some clarity. The questions raised by Mr. Bacal
started this teapot-sized controversy, the 800+ members of teamnet-l are now
subjects of censorship as direct result of those questions, one member (not the
moderator) of HRNET granted him permission to proceed, while I actually
apologized to the moderator of MG-ED-DV because a humor article was posted in
error (mine) to that list after I had earlier agreed I would desist from further
posts in that vein.

Speaking to one who is fond of asking questions while malingering on providing
solutions, how did those actions prove to be beneficial to the membership of the
lists involved?

A word of precaution would be for Mr. Bacal to avoid posting links and
announcements I have previously posted here. Redundancy may get exceedingly
tiresome. And a word of thanks of thanks to him for the quote web site. I
didn't have that one! ;0)


ICQ #26317826
__________________________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX 79605
mailto:Choragus@email.com
Home Page: http://home.att.net/~Choragus

> > You seem to be spending a good deal of effort defending yourself, but
> > I haven't commented on the value of your posts (although others have
> > both pro and con). I asked a simple question: Could I do what you do
> > in terms of posts? Is it ok to do that? Seemed like a reasonable
> > polite question to me. Then all heck breaks loose.

He says coyly and batting his eyelashes...

Nothing like dropping a bomb and walking off...

> Although...on the list, its seems to run more pro than con. Doesn't it?

Yes... we fellow list readers certainly can separate the wheat from
the chaff rather nicely... not to worry.

--
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
[the Internet] could remain what it ought to be:
just a public instrument. There ought to be efforts --
not just talk but real efforts -- to ensure Internet
access, not just for rich people but for everyone.
~~ Noam Chomsky ~~