From: LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET (Public-Access Computer Systems Forum)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Subject: Lurkers
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:53:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

4 Messages, 74 Lines
*-----
*These messages will be the last ones to be mailed on this topic*
*-----
From:         Dan Lester <ALILESTE@IDBSU>
Subject:      Re: Lurkers
On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:15:55 CDT Public-Access Computer Systems Forum said:
>"Wallflowers", "Lurkers", "Observers", etc. etc. etc.  -  who really
>cares and does it *really* matter?  Those who do not actively

    Not to me.   And for those who want to be "voyeurs without the sexual
connotation", good luck!

>of the PACS-L universe.  A writer becomes known because of the readers,
>not because of other writers.

   Exactly.  Although some of the OTHER writers may be useful inspiration
or may be helpful in getting another writer known.

>I suggest that the term Monitor be used, one of its definitions is "to
>you are reading this on, and the family of large lizards (Varanidae) but

   Well, I don't think it will ever fly, but this one is interesting,
exactly because of the lizard reference.  Monitors are sort of like
Geckos, and I'm VERY fond of geckos.  However, my memory is that a number
of electronic librarians, particularly those on another library list,
are NOT very fond of them.   Sounds good to me.

dan

*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester                          Bitnet:   alileste@idbsu              *
* Associate University Librarian      Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu    *
* Boise State University                                                    *
* Boise, Idaho  83725                 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak  *
* 208-385-1234                        for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
*-----
From: "Richard Pugh : Compulsive Lurker." <RP0358@ALBNYVMS.BITNET>
Subject: Lurkers, lurkers and more lurkers.

Since a lot of people are still talking about Lurkers, this lurker will pose
a question:  I don't know how many people are on PACS-L, or any of the other
"busy" listservers, but if EVERYONE on the list contributed all of the time,
none of us would ever finish reading the mail!  Worse still, if there were
no lurkers, a lot of good ideas would be stiffled because only a small group
of people are reading them.  In light of that, my question is: what's wrong
with being a lurker, and why were so many people making such a big deal out
of it?

Richard J. Pugh, Compulsive Lurker
State University of New York at Albany
*----
From:    B_FARAH@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Barb Farah,603-862-4168)
Subject: RE: Lurkers
Why does this discussion on "lurkers", etc. seem so unrelenting.  Aren't
we making assumptions here about communication to a list being the
final word?  Maybe what we read, we talk about to others not on the list.
Maybe we reply to individiuals.  Maybe we think about it and write an
article.  Maybe we bring it to meetings, committees, grant proposals,
and local, national, regional planning groups.  Barb Farah
*-----
From: "Fran E. Rich" <frich@tenet.edu>
Subject: Re: Lurkers

This is a totally useless discussion that has dragged on too long. Can we
please drop it? Why are those listening and learning considered
less important than those who are speaking out? If they weren't conceived
as such by the *active* members, this discussion would never have gotten
this far. Whatever "lurkers" are called, *someone* would object. So why
don't we just let it be.

Fran
frich@tenet.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU