[meteorite-list] What doesn't this list use an online

[JKGwilliam]

David,
I think you've already made your point.  Those member of the 
Meteorite List who care to comment have done so already.  I was the 
first to reply to your original message and expressed my opinion that 
I liked the idea of a forum.  However, after having some more time to 
think about it, I've decided I like Art's format the way it is.  I 
belong to several forums so I know how to get around in them.  One 
that I belong to has problems on a regular basis that require the 
owner to spend a lot of time making fixes.  Forums also have a pretty 
steep learning curve that a lot of folks probably don't want to fuss with.
But, the real reason I replied to your message was to respond to some 
of your questions.  See my answers inserted below.

At 07:23 PM 2/22/2008, David & Kitt Deyarmin wrote:
>Please explain the following:
>
>1. The meteorite list is a time-honoured institution.
>
>It's only been around for 11 years.  What did you use before the list?

JKG...the fact that it has been around for 11 years says a lot.  If 
you knew who the list of members included you would be surprised and 
possible humbled a bit.  Many of the "big" names in meteoritical 
science are member of the Met. List.



>2.We love the old-fashion style
>
>Who is we?  Are you speaking for the entire membership?

JKG...I think "we" includes a majority of the List including 
myself.  I love old-fashion cameras  with metal bodies and real glass 
lenses.  I like cars and guns made of metal too. For some reason, I 
just can't get used to the idea of plastic car parts or the Glock 
plastic pistols.  I like old-fashion girls without all the Botox, 
fake nails and eyelashes and gel bags ( or is it saline nowadays).  I 
like old TV programs.  Even though I have over 200 cable channels to 
choose from,  I find myself watching a lot of Andy Griffith, Lucille 
Ball, Rowen and Martin and movies in B&W.  There are a lot of us in 
the "over fifty " crowd that like the "old-fashion" things in 
life.  Man...I remember this one particular 1956 Checy I had back in 
1968...wish I still had it.  Newer isn't always better; progress does 
not result in an improvement.



>3. A forum offers a lot of more knickknack. It's more laboriously to use,
>
>How is a forum had to use

JKG...For one thing, a forum requires a lot more mouse click to read 
through all the topic and replies.  As well as I know how to use most 
forum formats, they're easy to get lost in.  One goal I've been 
working on for the past few years is to simplify my life.  Fewer 
mouse click = simpler life.




>4. unclear, the threads are more difficult to follow
>
>How is unclear and how could a thread with every reply in 
>chronological order be difficult to follow?
>
>
>
>5. and it would cause much more work for poor Art.
>
>Why would it cause more work for Art?
>

JKG...sound like you're looking for an argument at this point.  And, 
since I'm trying to simplify my life, this is where I get off the bus.

Best,
John


>6. The conversation there would be less formal, hence a lot of not 
>so interesting stuff to read ect.
>
>
>Again, why would it be less formal, not that this list is formal by 
>any stretch
>
>
>7. you had to fight through hundreds of pictures, which might not 
>interest you....
>
>In all my years I have never read a thread that had hundreds of 
>images. However wouldn't it be nice to be able to see a picture that 
>someone wanted to post instead of having to click on a URL which has 
>been interrupted and split into to 2 lines, so you have to go back 
>and cut and paste each part into the address bar.
>______________________________________________
>http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list