Re: Public Comments - Helene and Marion Pockrus
Subject: Re: Public Comments
From: Helene and Marion Pockrus
Date: February 21, 1998

Steve, I don't have to delete the ones that are pertinent and appreciate
the work.  I for one am delighted to have gotten the Holt material.  Now
are there any Arants or Hancocks?  Keep up the good work.  Don't let them
get you down.  It's time for them to learn to use a delete key.

> From: Steven Coker 
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Hopkins 
> Subject: Public Comments
> Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 11:45 AM
> To: Sarah Browder and the other subscribers
> cc: Adrian Hopkins, List Owner 
> This one time public statement is offered for consideration by the list
> and all subscribers.  It would be best if responses were not sent to the
> service.  They should be sent to me or to the list owner.  
> I'm sorry if any of you don't like the information I posted.  Most of it
> contains genealogical resources on numerous surnames in South Carolina
> the 1670-1900 period.  Including membership roles, poll lists, patient
> property owner lists, etc.  With a couple of exceptions I generally only
> items that contained genealogical gems mentioning more than a few
> Here are my some of my thoughts on the matter which I offer for
consideration by
> you and others concerned with the issue of the 30 or so messages I posted
> night.
> 1. All of the 30 or so messages were small, most 4k or less.  
> 2. Almost all were on topic with interesting information useful for
> researchers.  The two that may have stretched the boundaries were about
> Attack on Sullivan's Island.  Those two were posted in response to
inquiries and
> comments from several people asking specifically about the Island's
history.  I
> decided to post that information because the 190 year old book from which
it was
> taken is not readily available to most people.
> 3. I've gotten many comments from other readers thanking me for the
> Nobody has ever complained directly to me about any of them.  Quite the
> contrary, so far I've only gotten positive responses.  Several have asked
me to
> look for specific information on their surnames, which I have often done
> asked.  One person did childishly forward several of the messages back to
> without comment or explanation of any kind.  
> 4. I tried to be selective about what I posted.  I tried not to post
items that
> didn't have information of interest to a wide audience.  That audience
> persons seeking genealogy information and resources for South Carolina.
> 5. I did the work late at night when the net servers should not be
> hard.  So the routing would have no effect on the system.  Of course 30
or so
> small messages over an 8 hour period wouldn't have had any effect on the
> servers anyway.
> 6. I don't consider it "hogging" because I wasn't posting information for
> myself.  I was posting information to help others, not myself.  I've
> received messages from others saying the information has helped them. 
> such responses arrived while I was doing the work last night.  Such
> responses stimulated me to continue past when I would have otherwise
ceased the
> work.
> 7. I could have "spread out" the messages and not sent so many in one
> But, I actually thought that concentrating them would be better for the
> editions.  Figured putting all those short messages in a few digests
seemed like
> a way to make them easier to use and save for future review. 
> 8. I was born and raised in Columbia, South Carolina, and have lived in
> Charleston for many years.  My various family lines are spread throughout
> State and most have been here for 200-300+ years.  I graduated from the
> University of South Carolina and spent many hours in Caroliniana Library.
> done research in the State Archives, the Huguenot Society archives, and
I'm a
> past member of the SC Historical Society, and the Sumter and Columbia
> of the S.C. Genealogical Society.  I offer this information by way of
> that I feel that I have an above average understanding of the State, its
> history, and the genealogy of some of the families found here.  Thus, I
feel I
> have some ability to discriminate which types and sources of information
> be useful to a wider audience.  However, I do not purport to be an
expert, a
> historian, or a professional genealogist.  I am just an interested
amateur who
> likes to help share information.
> The only negative I thought might be perceived would be that its a lot of
> messages from one person.  But, I decided since they were on topic
> interest subjects that I would be forgiven for that little sin.
> Since I sent all of them before most folks got up this morning, the
> should all be delivered at once when each subscriber logs in for the day,
> dribbled in.  If anyone is having these messages being delivered or
> one message at the time, there must be something wrong about how their
> program is configured.  When they first installed email programs on the
> computers in our offices, the default setup was for every incoming
message to
> spawn a popup message and an audio alarm.  Well, it wasn't uncommon for
> in the office to receive dozens of messages every day.  People were
cussing and
> getting very upset because they were regularly being interrupted while
they were
> trying to work by the alarms and popup messages.  We simply showed them
how to
> turn off those alarms and set their email program to just blink the icon,
or do
> nothing, when new mail arrived.  That solved the problem and ended the
> annoyance.  They get even more email now than they did when it was setup
> ago.  But, now it simply sits politely in their inbox until they get time
> check the mail.  It doesn't interrupt or annoy them.  
> I hope that any problems or concerns subscribers might be having with
> 30 or more messages per day aren't caused by such simple things as an
> alarm sounding.  Such simple annoyances can be turned off if the
> chooses to do so.  Isn't the information more important than having a
> bell dinging when a message arrives?
> When someone gets around to checking their mail, if they find a lot of
> that doesn't interest them, then its easy to delete it.  Takes about 1-2
> per message to delete them individually.  Or, group deletions can be done
> faster.  The only way it could take a lot of time to delete 30 or so
> would be if the user stopped to read each one first.  It seems
incongruous that
> they would take the time to read each of them if they are of the mind
that they
> don't want to see these types of messages.
> In conclusion, if either the list owner or a significant number of the
> participant's find my postings undesirable, then I will of course cease
> contributing to the list service.  However, as I said earlier, I have to
> received many complimentary thanks for the postings and, until now,
almost no
> complaints.  Perhaps following this public statement of my thoughts on
> matter I will find there are many others who agree with you.  I'll be
> to find out one way or the other.  But, let us all try to keep any
discussion of
> the subject limited, civil, and let us not clog up the list service with
> discussion.  
> Sincerely,
> Steven J. Coker
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 
> > Enough is enough. If you can't stop Coker from so many messages, then
take me
> > off the list. I had over 35-40 this morn. I do not have time to read SC
> > history. I am interested in genealogy.  But that still takes time just
> > delete that many messages. Let me know if you intend to stop him or I
> > others will have to get off the list.  Thanks
> > Sarah Browder
> > 
> -- 
==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====

Go To:  #,  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  I,  J,  K,  L,  M,  N,  O,  P,  Q,  R,  S,  T,  U,  V,  W,  X,  Y,  Z,  Main