Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:36:38 EDT
Reply-To: FrankGRUN@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM>
Subject: On the Appropriateness of the Archive Word
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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