Re: Lurkers and apologists

[Dan Emory <danemory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Van:

I certainly didn't intend the word "lurker" to be a pejorative. I fully
understand why many don't participate, not the least of which is that it
helps to keep the spammers at bay.

My positive opinion about lurkers was reflected in my original post, where I
stated "they are the real audience," (rather than the rat pack), because I
deduce that many of you welcome controversial opinions that cause the sparks
to fly.

At 03:23 PM 11/6/98 -0800, Van Shackelford wrote:
>Thank you for this explanation, all of which apply. I found the comment
>about lurkers a _wee tad_ offensive, but quickly got over it for I
>understand the emotions going on with these lists; and the freedoms at
>stake. I am one of those lurkers. I have nothing of substance to add to
>most posting but get a tremendous amount knowledge from many of the
>posting. With lists, I too am on many, I try to use the rule:  
>
>It is better to keep ones mouth shut 
>and be thought an fool than to open 
>it and remove all doubt. <Or some such...>
>
>I just broke my rule; now you know. 
>
>Lurker in bliss.
>\V  ;-)

Dan Emory
Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design
and Database Publishing Specialists

Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971
E-Mail: danemory@primenet.com
10044 Adams Ave. #208
Huntington Beach, CA 92646


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **