Re: Public Comments - Patsy
Subject: Re: Public Comments
From: Patsy
Date: February 21, 1998

Keep it coming, let those who don't need or appreciate it, just use the
delete key.  That shouldn't take too much energy.


> From: Steven Coker 
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Hopkins 
> Subject: Public Comments
> Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 10:45 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