The 'health' if the list

[contains: 
  "their own interests /could/ be taking a different direction from the
mundane."
  "discussions at least /capable/ of producing a change in one's thinking"
  "The answer for the listener/lurker is to change the Subject line"
  "how to encourage the timid toe-dippers"
  "The 'health' if the list"
  "put a small number of key points at the top/beginning"  D.]

>Renee wrote:
>> ... this discussion may not be particularly engaging for most people on
the list; judging from the numbers of people leaving the list right now, I
can assume this is the case. ... arguments ... only between two or three
people. The list has about 150 people; let's bear the larger community in
mind when we post.
>
At 17:50 24/03/00 -0800, Eric Storm wrote: 
> ...  Lists survive only by the participation of the people on the list.
>How much weight should be given to those who don't participate, even to say
>what they'd like or not like to see on the list? ... I just remember that 
>less that a dozen people responded to my "Who's still out there?" post. 
> ...  Any one else have thoughts on this?
>

**  I agree that a DE list should discuss "What is Natural?", particularly
with Jon Sumby's great post (at 18:50 21/03/00 +1100) to lead it off. I
have to admit that I've paid this thread little attention, perhaps because
of the minutia I happened to come across. However:-

(1) I would guess that some (most?) people use a list like this simply as a
reminder that other ways of looking at things do exist, and that their own
interests /could/ be taking a different direction from the mundane.

(2) Yet Eric's point is the most valid, I think; discussions at least
/capable/ of producing a change in one's thinking are the only ones worth
listening-to and hopefully taking part in. So the list exists mainly for
those who post to it, at least occasionally.

(3) The answer I see to the "uninteresting details" problem for the
listener/lurker is to change the Subject line when most of a post goes into
some detail, especially when it's not directly connected the Deep Ecology
philosophy (whatever that is). Then those uninterested don't have to follow
down that side-alley.

**  This still leaves the question of: how to encourage the timid
toe-dippers, holding onto the flock, spreading the word, in other words
proselytising. Elsewhere I've said:
**  The "health" if the list should, IMO, be the main criterion.
Disagreement and argument can contribute to that health, provided it's
(again) to the point of the list. "Illness" is when quite a few people
start deciding they don't want to be on the list because (i) there are too
many posts, (ii) there is too much acrimony (too strong or too frequent),
and/or (iii) there's consistently a slant that they are turned off by (e.g.
my radical fundamentalist views on consumption).

**  So keeping the interest of those on the fringes, and giving them
something within their worldview to chew on, is important when
changing-hearts-and-minds is part of the reason for existence of a
discussion group.
**  My answer is to put a small number of key points at the top/beginning,
so those with a short attention-span (or other more important things to do)
can skim through the "executive summary" to see what interest is sparked.

**  However, I'm human too, and often don't do that.

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d@bigfoot.com 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
 or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************