[Just for info, this same was posted in response to the incoming message, BUT because of the way the gateway mailers formed the addresses, I couldn't do a simple reply. Therefore the re-posting to the BITNET lists. If I've included your address twice, AND you get the message from the same source twice, I apologize in advance! gph] I never thought I'd send a note like the following, but... I'm tired. I'm easy going, hard to ruffle, and basically put up with a lot of extraneous stuff... The <moderators> list @purdue provided *lots* of help when the Info-IBMPC Digest list started getting stuff from USENET, I enjoyed reading the notes, but recently... I never thought I'd send a note like the following, but... I'm tired. I'm easy going, hard to ruffle, and basically put up with a lot of extraneous stuff... The <moderators> list @purdue provided *lots* of help when the Info-IBMPC Digest list started getting stuff from USENET, I enjoyed reading the notes, but recently... >From: [log in to unmask] (Chris Lewis) >Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:15:15 -0400 >To: "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]>, >[other addees deleted...] >On Apr 13, 15:20, "Stevan Harnad" wrote: >} Subject: The problem of multiple postings >} > Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, and >} > Access" <[log in to unmask]> } > From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <[log in to unmask]> >} > Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must >} > be carried out on four different lists? Why does it need to be on [Lots of text deleted... but basically discussing *why* Ejournals are being discussed on the {several lists having to do with moderators}] >Not to put too fine a point on it, but one wonders whether this sort of >discussion is relevant to the sort of distribution that *eight* lists >represents. I may be somewhat off-base, but it does occur to me that >ejournal discussions don't really belong in the moderators or even the >Bitnet list owners mailing list - I'm not a member of the latter, but >it appears to me that the majority of mailing lists represented by >these two "meta-lists" are, by and large, not really relevant to the >"ejournals" conversations - these people are mainly interested in >day-to-day operation of existing, not refereed (or ever likely to be >refereed) ad-hoc lists for very specialized interest groups. My list >is about pet ferret ownership for heck's sake. And my list has ended up being about the day to day running of PC's in general. If I could implement a 'kill' command for the TOPS-20 mail system, I'd do it for *any* message having to do with Electronic Journals, Ejournals, et al... (There *are* other text strings I'd include, but I'd like to be semi-polite...) The Info-IBMPC list is not referreed, but moderated. I don't see how Stevan's topic has anything to do with the day to day operations of maintaining a mailing list. I know that Stevan's topic is *very* important for the future of USENET, the Internet, and other network connections as far as providing rapid access to documentation, disertations, and publishing peer accepted papers, but ... >Stevan, I *strongly* suggest that you set up your own mailing list for >this topic. Concur. Please leave my address off of this list. >After a vote *please*. >Or make your own newsgroup. Please call for a vote *or* start your own newsgroup. *BUT* don't keep sending mail to all the list maintainers. Regards, Gregory Hicks Editor, Info-IBMPC Digest -------