From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Nov 24 15:23:07 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA05722 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:23:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199511242023.PAA05722@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 4C91144C ; Fri, 24 Nov 1995 16:13:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 20:12:56 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: serving the needs of Lojban learners To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR I realize I'm not supposed to give my views on this matter, as I was explicitly singled out as an egregious non-lurker, but give my views I nonetheless shall. I would like to see two lists, one low traffic and the other high traffic, for technical discussions. (Lojban list cd be the low traffic, and we cd call the new one "Jbobau" or "Jbomri" or suchlike.) If Jorge and me and Lojbab and a few others tended to direct our postings to the high traffic list, then the low traffic one would be perfectly manageable, and the volume wd not be a deterrent. People cd subscribe and unsubscribe to the hi volume list when time and enthusiasm and disk quota permits, while staying always subscribed to the low volume list, in order to keep in touch with the lojban community. This solution appeals to me because I am of the view that the high level of discussion on the list serves partly to power the project, but it also deters potential adherents and places a great burden on the forbearance of those who are sympathetic to the project but not fanatically so. If this solution were adopted, and if we have records of those who sign on and off the list, then perhaps private email could be sent to those people telling them of lojban low traffic list. Anything involving newsgroups and WWW to the exclusion of email is bad for me. --- And