If the list was in jeopardy of apparent low participation, threat of wind up
would surely bring all lurkers forward. Me? Well about all I'm good for is
lurking and fishing anyway.
Thor Tandy P.Eng MCSCE
From: Lynn <lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Sunday, June 13, 1999 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Special message for Lurker's
>Dennis Wish, Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
>> Appreciation of the services does not justify its existence.
>I disagree with you on this. It is obvious to me at least that if the
>list were to end now, the 14,900 of the list would loose what they
>consider a valuable asset.
>> Using the
>> service to constitute change for the better, to open up channels of
>> information, to solve problems for the sake of the public and to maintain
>> ethics of safe buildings through structural engineering is what this
>> is all about.
>Again, I disagree with here. While solving problems can be a great
>fringe benefit of the list, I would not put this as the top priority.
>In my mind the main purpose of the list is to allow the free exchange of
>of ideas concerning structural engineering for anyone who wishes to
>participate. Participation by 99.9% of those who subscribe is to just
>read the exchanges by others.
>It would be great if more people choose to participate. But I do not
>think it is vital for the list to perform it's primary function.