I suppose the quest for college chicks is legit but frankly they would wear
me out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Changing the NAME of Scuba-SE?
I guess I am showing my age cuz if I was one of the uninitiated unwashed,
and whose to say I ain't, and I did a search on scuba in the listservs, and
came up with scuba-l & scuba-se, I'd go with the '-l' since I knew at one
time that meant listserv, gawd only knows what I might think -se meant.
Also if I was to come across 2 scuba-l<s>, I'd go with the one ending in
".edu" cuz I'd think that gave it more legitimacy...and college chicks might
hang out here.
ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Not at all am I missing the point. You are missing mine. Having 2 SCUBA-L
LISTSERVS come back when you search for it WILL lead to confusion, it WILL
lead to worse feelings than already exist, and IMO is a pointless thing to
do. If you search on LISTSERV and SCUBA you find both SCUBA-L and SCUBA-SE
and countless other SCUBA related LISTSERVs as well. The -L is an archaic
convention. It is sort of like .COM. Everyone wants to use use it. So, do
I sign up for [log in to unmask] (or whatever it is) or
[log in to unmask] What sets one apart from the other? How do the
uninitiated unwashed masses find you if you use the same name?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Changing the NAME of Scuba-SE?
> I think your missing the point Chuck, many years ago when I got make into
> diving I went online searching for scuba-l, cuz I knew that "-l" meant
> listserv. If I came on now searching for a scuba listserv to hang out
with,
> I'd probably so the same. No way in heck would I ever search for
'scuba-se",
> so the only list I'd find is the Nick's dominatrix list.
> If it was possible I 'd say change the list to 'scuba-l', that way we may
> get more new divers stopping by. As far as stealing it, hell it was
> hi-jacked from us anyway.
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Changing the NAME of Scuba-SE?
>
>
> > > Should Scuba-L be the new list in UTC, the FUTURE traffic will
> > > undoubtedly rise. At which time, CO-OWNERS can be assigned by
> > > Richard Gambrell or voted for by the existing members (in a
> > > LEGIT vote <G>) to help keep Jeff's w*rk down to a level no more
> > > than the present.
> > >
> > Since a LISTSERV has no real presence on the WEB, that is, there is no
> URL,
> > no DNS servers, no specifice IP address, there is no real reason why
there
> > cannot be 10 or 100 or 1000 LISTSERVs with the same name. However, that
> > being said, it seems to me unwise to allow yourself to be confused with
> > something you hold in abhorrence. The confusion that could be generated
> is
> > unlikely to be worth the pain and the bad rap you could get with other
> > 'netizens' for preempting someone else's 'name.' What is in a name
> anyway?
> > What difference if it is called SCUBA-L or SCUBA-Q? No one except a few
> > care one way or the other. It is after all, little more than an e-mail
> > address that automatically propagates e-mail.
> >
> > BTW, when I inquired at Google about listing LISTSERVs, the answer I got
> > back was that they dont handle LISTSERVs the same way they handle
> newsgroups
> > and have no plans to do so. The best that could be done at the time was
> to
> > get the archive web page put into the google search engines.
> >
> > CH
> >
>
>
|
