[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
-------