North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Road's End Farm <organic87@frontiernet.net>]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Robert Mullins wrote:

> 'Rooting' was absolutely accurate when he described email listings 
> being
> 'antique', but it would be more descriptive to say it's 'archaic' from 
> a
> technological perspective.  I have wide interests, and read across the
> board in many disciplines and I simply don't know anyone still using
> mailing lists as a repository of information. You said " I want to see 
> a
> better argument against the email list than that somebody thinks it is
> "antique"."  Well, with technology this is a very real, and good
> argument.  Just as a good reason why NOT to buy a Model 'T' Ford would
> be that you just can't find parts to them.  I'm not saying that it
> wouldn't be cool to have one, but it's functionality is greatly
> diminished if not pretty much useless.

I'm not sure that's the right analogy. I'm on several email lists; they 
seem to continue to function, and now and then somebody posts on them 
about new ones they're starting. So I have the impression that it's 
still quite possible to do the equivalent of "finding parts" for 
mailing lists.

Here's a different analogy: how about a car versus a bicycle? People 
who drive cars would only still be driving Model T's if they think 
Model T's are cool; and even then, they'll have more problems with 
their driving than those will who are driving something newer. But some 
people only use bicycles, some people only cars, and some use both a 
car and a bicycle, for different types of travel. They're both methods 
of transportation; but they're better at different aspects of 
transportation, and some people's lives fit better with one than with 
the other. Why should we all have to live the same way?

The technology of both cars and bicycles has continued to improve. The 
bicycles now on the market are no more the same as the bicycles on the 
market in the 1920's than the cars are the same as the Model T's. I 
don't know whether people are also improving the technology of email 
groups, such as the ability to search archives; but I wouldn't assume 
that this isn't possible.

> I personally don't know anyone who wants to pour through around 100
> emails a day just to get to information they are interested in.

I find it even harder to hunt through those posts contained in dozens 
of threads on a board; any of which, despite their titles, may include 
information that doesn't fit into the title of the thread.

> I myself considered turning off the email flood I get from NAFEX 
> because
> it's just way too much.
There isn't usually anywhere near this much of it! (I say, contributing 
yet again to the pile). And what I do when I'm too busy is, I don't go 
to the boards at all; so I just miss discussion on boards entirely. I 
rarely go back through the archives when I do get time to go back on. 
If it comes into the email box, I at least glance at it, and get some 
sense of what's going on.

I'd also like to note that having the discussion as a whole come at me 
means that I at least glance at posts it turns out I did want to see, 
when I would almost certainly have missed them on a board. I doubt I'd 
have checked a board thread on blueberries, for instance, as my soil is 
too sweet for them -- or so I thought. But a while ago there were 
several posts on this board to the effect that blueberries sometimes do 
just fine in soil with pH in the range of mine.

And I'm in agreement with Karen Kellogg, quoted below. --

On Feb 17, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Karen Kellogg wrote:

>   I like the mailing list too. I like the chatter coming to me, not
> me having to go find it.  I can always google a topic for
> information, but what happens on this NAFEX list seems to me to be
> more of the kind of talk one would have over a backyard fence with a
> neighbor who also gardens or grows fruit trees.
>
> The backyard 'over-the -fence' exchange is certainly archaic and
> antique, but it suits me just fine. If all this chatter goes to a
> bulletin board where I have to search out various threads and try to
> remember what I was interested in and where it was, searchable or
> not, I would not be bothered to do it.
>
> Send it to my in box and I read some, scan through some, save some,
> delete some.   What I end up with is the lore of the members in my
> own useful format:  a folder, a note on an index card, a printout.