The subject of your message is my belief 100%. I have unsubscribed to a couple rootswebs from the reason that no information could be as inportant as what it takes to delete all those messages like you said. I took off a couple days and I had 140 of this kind of messages with absoutely nothing of importance. They are nothing but chat rooms. Dont look for the webowners to correct it. B'nard. -----Original Message----- From: Donna Mariner <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2000 6:05 PM Subject: [PAGE] SUPERFLOUS EMAILS >I am sending this to each list I belong to - sorry if it offends anyone! > >On one of the lists to which I subscribe, the Listowner has continually >suggested that we listen to ROOTSWEB'S often repeated plea to try to >limit our LIST emails to ones that actually mention ancestors' names and >have information contained in them. However, the attitude most >Listmembers have, is "Boring! No fun! Not personal enough!" We can all >understand that, but with all the rest of you, we also have to view many >emails that are "trash" because they are totally useless comments. >Maybe there's a happy medium? > >The Listowner states that > >> "e-mails that contain only acknowledgment words, >> such as "Me, too!", "Thank you" , "Jan, you're right!", "Great information!" with >> no further explanation or details, only serve to further clog the Rootsweb email >> archive files. " >> >Remember, each email one sends is going into the Rootsweb archives - in >addition to being sent to hundreds of other list members. Most of us >just quickly delete those two-word messages and go on, but wouldn't it >be more conscientious and space saving (Rootsweb is always running out >of space) if one responded privately with the "Yes, you're right" >messages? Or if responding to specifics that are important to all of >us, concerning ancestor's facts, one included just a bit of the message >you're responding to, so that everyone on the list will be able to >associate the responses with the original messages? Sometimes, the >keeping of the same subject gives us hints....but what WAS the original >message? > >If email is to only be understood by the initiating person and the >previous email's sender, why include it on the list? > >I am not a Listowner, so obviously I have no right to suggest to >individual lists how to operate - but I AM a contributor to Rootsweb and >feel that the archives need to have unnecessary correspondence reduced >as much as possible. > >Comments welcome, of course, but keep it privately to me unless you feel >ALL should hear. > >Thanks. Donna Broyles Braden Mariner > > > > >==== PAGE Mailing List ==== >PAGE list website - http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/PAGE.htm > >