I agree with Lynn. On some issues, I like to read what amounts to a poll of
opinions. On the majority of postings, I would prefer to see only new
approaches or answers stated. Reading the postings as they are now takes up
more time than I really want use on this list. If nearly every one on the
list kept adding to the list with old information, I would leave the list
and I am sure many more would also.
SDS Architects, Inc
205 N. Dewey Street
Eau Claire, WI 54703
From: Lynn [mailto:lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 6:39 PM
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.