high volume on tuning@yahoogroups.com

It took me four hours, from 4:00 to 8:00, to get through 24 hours worth of posts today. This is
insane! Could we all please think very carefully, before posting, as to whether the post might be
better off on this list, or one on of the other spin-off lists, or e-mailed off-list . . . people have
complained about the signal-to-noise ratio but not much is being done about it . . . no wonder
Julie doesn't want to join! We look like a chat room or something (hey, someone suggested
forming a tuning chat room a long time ago . . . perhaps the time is ripe). Let's "shape up"!

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@...>

> It took me four hours, from 4:00 to 8:00, to get through 24 hours worth of
posts today. This is
> insane! Could we all please think very carefully, before posting, as to
whether the post might be
> better off on this list, or one on of the other spin-off lists, or
e-mailed off-list . . . people have
> complained about the signal-to-noise ratio but not much is being done
about it . . . no wonder
> Julie doesn't want to join! We look like a chat room or something (hey,
someone suggested
> forming a tuning chat room a long time ago . . . perhaps the time is
ripe). Let's "shape up

Ah! I think hell just froze over.

db

Paul,

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> It took me four hours, from 4:00 to 8:00, to get through 24 hours
> worth of posts today. This is insane!

Would you like me to search the archives I have on my hard disk,
where you were AT LEAST as fluent in typing as any have been today?
It would be one of the easiest tasks I've had in weeks, far easier
than debugging your word wrap (which I still can't figure out)...

I have a hunch: volume bothers you when it isn't a topic you are
fully interested in, and that would be a common and human response.
But really now... it would be SO easy to pull out those archives.

> no wonder Julie doesn't want to join!

Maybe it was who she was talking to, as well, or something else. I
see ebb and flow of traffic on a non-music site that I follow
regularly, and it self-regulates pretty well. Just follow your own
advice and we'll all follow suit!

Cheers,
Jon (who is really glad this is happening on this list, and only
caught it by chance...)

Paul Erlich wrote:

>(hey, someone suggested
> forming a tuning chat room a long time ago . . . perhaps the time
is ripe). Let's "shape up"!

There's a chat room with every Yahoo Group.

Graham

Dear David Beardsley:

So far I have only read complaints from you about Paul Erlich. I
think we all understand already that you are not interested in what
he has to say.

Why don't you try instead just writing about the things that interest
you? I'm sure some people will be interested in your work, and I am
also sure that some people won't be interested, but they probably
won't keep reminding us that they are not interested.

Xavier

--- In metatuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <db@b...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@s...>
>
> > It took me four hours, from 4:00 to 8:00, to get through 24 hours
worth of
> posts today. This is
> > insane! Could we all please think very carefully, before posting,
as to
> whether the post might be
> > better off on this list, or one on of the other spin-off lists, or
> e-mailed off-list . . . people have
> > complained about the signal-to-noise ratio but not much is being
done
> about it . . . no wonder
> > Julie doesn't want to join! We look like a chat room or something
(hey,
> someone suggested
> > forming a tuning chat room a long time ago . . . perhaps the time
is
> ripe). Let's "shape up
>
> Ah! I think hell just froze over.
>
> db

--- In metatuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > It took me four hours, from 4:00 to 8:00, to get through 24 hours
> > worth of posts today. This is insane!
>
> Would you like me to search the archives I have on my hard disk,
> where you were AT LEAST as fluent in typing as any have been today?
> It would be one of the easiest tasks I've had in weeks, far easier
> than debugging your word wrap (which I still can't figure out)...

I was including myself in that plaint. A collective, "let's trim down"!
>
> I have a hunch: volume bothers you when it isn't a topic you are
> fully interested in, and that would be a common and human response.
> But really now... it would be SO easy to pull out those archives.

Pull out those archives?
>
> > no wonder Julie doesn't want to join!
>
> Maybe it was who she was talking to, as well, or something else. I
> see ebb and flow of traffic on a non-music site that I follow
> regularly, and it self-regulates pretty well. Just follow your own
> advice and we'll all follow suit!

You got it!

----- Original Message -----
From: <xjhouston7@...>

> Dear David Beardsley:
>
> So far I have only read complaints from you about Paul Erlich. I
> think we all understand already that you are not interested in what
> he has to say.
>
> Why don't you try instead just writing about the things that interest
> you? I'm sure some people will be interested in your work, and I am
> also sure that some people won't be interested, but they probably
> won't keep reminding us that they are not interested.

http://microtones.com/woot

Paul,

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I was including myself in that plaint. A collective, "let's trim
> down"!

Sorry, Paul, but it didn't remotely come across like that; more
like "what is wrong with you people, why can't you stop posting so
much!". Better be more exacting in your language in the future.

> Pull out those archives?

My collection of digests on my computer. I took a random sampling,
and your percentage of the posts in that random sample didn't
surprise me one bit (you are one busy typist, buddy...).

> You got it!

OK, I'm gonna hold you to it (not)...

Cheers,
Jon

Robert wrote:

> I wonder if anyone has thought about extrapolating to next year.

Perhaps we could have a sweepstake!

> Four times as many posts as last year for May, and this month seems
> as busy, already more posts this month in 11 days than in the entire
> month last year (and no special fantastic new discovery to boost
> the numbers).

But July's usually the busiest month. Too sunny for us Northern
hemisphere types to sit at home reading email? So perhaps it'll die down
soon.

> Just suppose for a moment that we are entering a period of exponential
> growth, then next year one would expect 10000 posts per month!

Ah, but what if the number of groups is also growing exponentially?
We'll be spending all our time checking them all, with none left for
posting.

It's self regulating.

> Apologies for anyone on tuning-math - posted this msg there by
accident,
> though I suppose in a kind of a way it is approprate,...
>
> Sorry, sent it to the main list too!!!

Well, it's found its natural home now.

I only hope this silly name stuff doesn't spread.

I wrote:

> But July's usually the busiest month. Too sunny for us Northern
> hemisphere types to sit at home reading email? So perhaps it'll
die down
> soon.

Duh! s/busiest/quietest

> I only hope this silly name stuff doesn't spread.

Silly names are easy on metatuning becasue of the open membership.
But I'll have to post from home to join in the fun.