i understand MP's impulse. I run my own list and have wished, in the past, that more people would join in. i refuse to engage in attempts to silence people, however.
additionally, i would like to point out that it is futile to refuse to recognize that sometimes people don't participate because they want to watch. it has nothing to do with intimidation. it has nothing to do with traffic and a reluctance to contribute. it has nothing to do even with the fact that someone else already posted and said everything (and more) than the lurker might have wanted to say. it's just that there are a significant category of lurker who just don't want to join in. they LIKE lurking. i have been a sociological observer of list process for nearly eight years now and these discussions come up over and over again. when lurkers jump in to explain, they often want the dignity of being left alone to Be a lurker.
i think doug's provider charges him for these kinds of changes. it's technologically possible to limit posts to three a day, holding them in a queue and then releasing them until the next 24 hours starts. asking him to pay for a once a month period is asking the ISP to implement a special program and that will cost money. be prepared to dig into your pockets to support your desired changes.
sure, you can ask for a voluntary limit, but why? i don't politically agree with doug's voluntary limit because i think it fundamentally misunderstand the nature of list dynamics.
other than that, i'm busy and will have to go back to work, this period of posting having coincided with a period of forced "rest" because i've made myself ill from working two jobs. i've been, as they say, bedridden.
so, my failure to post will be due to having to, ahhh, support myself and my child and put him through college in another next five years. ahhh, yes, this makes me a shirker in terms of my duties to the revo i know....
kelley