Re: Lurkers

[Larry and Jodi Solomon <shlomo...>]

Ari Davidow wrote:
> 
> At 08:49 AM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >thanks for  defending the irregular contributors.  Lurker is a clearly
> >negative term, and implies that the regular writers on the list feel
> >that they have been mugged. I understand that, too.  is there a
> >suggested regularity  for a good citizen to contribute?  I consider
> >myself a new comer hold back for some reason I dont really know why.

I'm not looking to start a meta-discussion, but I wanted to point out
that in many internet circles, "lurker" is a generic term for one who
reads, but doesn't generally post to, a newwsgroup or mailing list. 
I've been one on many groups over the years, and rarely de-lurk to post
here even.  I've never considered the term to have any negative
connotations in this context -- it's just one of many net-terms that's
taken on it's own defnition.  I doubt that anybody meant to impugn
anyone's  value as a human being due to their "lurker" status.

What some people sometimes take issue with, is the occasional lurker
who, after reading and not contributing for an indefinite perioud of
time, surfaces only to say "I don't like what's being discussed here,
please change it," and then returns to lurker status.  Many people
consider that to be a statement that the lurker has no right to come out
with, having never participated positively in the discussion.

B'shalom,
Larry

-- 
Larry Solomon   shlomo (at) apk(dot)net
Proprietor, Merkaz Judaica    http://www.merkazjudaica.com

"Internet Explorer is bundled with the Windows 95 operating system - at
least until Microsoft can figure out a way to include it with every
polio vaccine or fuse it directly to the human spine."
 - The Daily Show

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+