Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:15:54 -0500
Reply-To: Stan Wilder <wilden1@JUNO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Stan Wilder <wilden1@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: On the Appropriateness of the Archive Word
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Great to see you getting back to good health.
Having read the 'go to the archives' statement many times myself; I've
actually gone there many times.
My most recent raid on the archives was to get information on 34 Pict-3
Solex carburetors, the rebuilding, adjustment and Yada Yada Yada.
I found everything I needed in Depth.
On a previous archives raid I was looking for info on Windage trays and
found only the post from yourself, me and Bob Donalds.
I've perfected my delete key functions into a F-10 macro for dual
batteries, tires, antifreeze, vendor bashing, roof racks, dripping heads
and a few more that don't immediately come to mind.
I must admit I've learned quite a bit from responses posted to current
topics even if they are heavily archived.
The wealth of information in the archives is staggering but then again it
seems that the original subject line gets perverted after a few responses
and then it comes right down to drudge work to get the final response to
a post.
When the subject of condensing the archives came up I jumped right in
with my suggestions but watched others chill pretty quickly as job
assignments were discussed.
And it nearly gave Frank a heart attack!
Since my specialty is Air Cooled Type IV engines I've put most of my
material that is worth repeating or had viable content on my web site and
I just pop in the link for those that might have an interest.
I'm well represented in the Archives with sarcasm, adolescent prattle and
down right stupid stuff that I've exchanged with other list members.
As a poor defense for this I must say I'm sure not the only one to fatten
the archives with foolishness.
Here's hoping that Frank has better directions than mine to extract the
valuable information from the archives and shave off the slag.
Stan Wilder
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:36:38 EDT Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
writes:
> Gentlemen and Ladies too,
>
> For the last several months I have been lurking, watching the list
> but
> without either the time or the motivation to respond to several of
> the
> developing issues on the list. This lack of time has been related to
> a
> particularly stressful proposal and experiment period at the lab,
> doctor's
> orders to accumulate at least 8 hours of sleep and a narrowly missed
> heart
> attack. 90% arterial blockage and now sporting two shape-memory
> alloy springs
> in my critical plumbing. The white garbed individuals bustling
> around me
> while my attention was riveted on the 30+ inch monitor displaying
> real time
> images of the heart, strongly suggested that my long standing diet
> of
> sausage, leberknoedel suppe, emmentaler cheese with salt and pepper
> and
> Augistinerbrau had to change and quickly.
>
> In any case I'm inclined to address several issues that have really
> bothered
> me concerning traffic on the list. One of the most serious was the
> recent
> exchange on the need for posters to access the archives before
> posting
> questions. Several individuals suggested that this should be a
> prerequisite
> etiquette prior to posting, while others suggested that the archives
> were
> impossible to access and anything should be game. Then for the
> final
> indelicate thrust --- one purportedly elderly poster held that the
> archive
> statement was just a form of snobbishness directed by individuals
> with more
> accumulated list time than others at the unwashed neophyte.
>
> As one of those who has programmed the phrase "please check the
> archives"
> into a function key on my keyboard, I feel compelled to offer an
> explanation.
>
> 1. For topics in which I have had little or no substantive input, I
> would
> offer this rejoinder when the issue has been extensively covered in
> the past
> with a volume of material that might be digested by the poser in 30
> minutes
> as opposed to hundreds of explanatory postings. Further, based on
> the past
> info, the poser could potentially offer a new question that would
> add
> substance to the debate.
>
> 2. For topics that I have tried to discuss at length, particularly
> those that
> might elongate the nose of conventional wisdom here, I frankly don't
> have
> time to repeat the exercise. Many of those posts residing in the
> archives
> took me one or more hours to input. (I've never been successfully
> accused of
> brevity!) I do not maintain a personal archive of those posts on my
> computers
> because I know that the archives are there.
>
> 3. For so many of these topics, I find myself saddened by the
> realization
> that so much of the effort that I and others have put into these
> posts is
> lost to those who simply don't have the interest or courtesy to
> check this
> wealth of material.
>
> 4. I agree that there is much BS in the archives and a more
> effective FAQ
> would help the problem. I had volunteered to begin marshaling a new
> effort to
> update the FAQ. Stan Wilder began the effort and has made a good
> first cut at
> the areas he had proposed to coordinate. Unfortunately this
> coincided with my
> heart problems and got relegated to a secondary status for me. I'll
> return to
> the effort shortly.
>
> 5. Finally, I will remind you of a standard admonition to entering
> graduate
> students:
>
> "Careful! Remember 6 weeks in the lab can easily save you a day in
> the
> library!"
>
> Frank Grunthaner
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
| 
