I have two comments, one selfish and one probably preachy:

I would personally find it a great loss to my own learning, and I believe to the listserves I co-frequent with you, to have you withdraw, and I think others would agree.

To be irritated by others is human... If someone like you gets irritated it's a good thing for all concerned; if you're considering withdrawal because you're irritated more on listerves than in your own chosen blogworld, isn't that a cause for hesitation? Irritation (and being an irritant) is surely a signal that you're not in an echo chamber? And yes, I know that you can be just as curmudgeonly on your blog as on lists... but it's somehow not the same...

Thanks Patrick. I think it is points 4&3 which are most irritating me at the moment in list serves of which I do not think you are a part. I doubt if I would ever unsubscribe from ActKM for example, although the level of participation seems to have fallen off. However being abused by the extreme and unthinking right and being libeled as a "Troll" in multiple emails and posts for daring to disagree about the applicability of the SECI model or Prediction Markets (the same person as it happens) saps one's energy somewhat if other people do not engage; or only do so sanctimoniously as described in 3 above. I may need to be selective in my withdrawal however.

I've always admired you for your staying power Dave... (a) I doubt that your adversaries can match that and (b) I've found it easy in the heat of a debate to lose sight of the broader community looking on ie keep in mind that other people are probably just as irritated as you are, but are not telling you so

Hi Dave - while my own involvement in listservs has dwindled since I started blogging, I still find them to be of value for the serendipity of encountering ideas and opinions often not found in blogs. Listservs are more like a messy public commons where we are trying to determine our role...establish our identities, etc. Blogs, however, are more under our control. I find in my blog reading, I need to intentionally seek diversity of thought, rather than it emerging abruptly on listservs. However, your point about lack of desire to debate is very valid. I don't think people are adverse to debate...I think they are adverse to debate in a public forum. Blogs circumvent that by being a space we elect to go, not one that comes to us.

Hi Dave,

Although this is a little different from your direction in this post. The one thing that you could do is access the information from your listservs through an RSS feed and in that way aggregate the voices of those in your listserv to the other voices in your RSS aggregator. Forwarding email through http://www.mailbucket.org/ or other service and then subscribing to the feed.

Not sure how this would effect privacy of listservs though.

Hi Dave --

Thanks for the fine remarks on the 30yo listserv model. I have quietly excused myself from most all for the reasons you so aptly describe.

It is important to accept that you can disagree w/o being disagreeable. Constructive disagreement is welcome, encouraged. Baiting people is not.

Anyway, the Google Groups that you are a member of has many owners, many facilitators, many moderators. If anything will save listserv, it is this flattening of moderation. Besides, today it takes about 3-seconds flat to spin-up a new discussion group.

Also, accuracy is important. For example, you seem to be taking a shot at the Value Networks group with this comment, "However being abused by the extreme and unthinking right and being libeled as a "Troll" in multiple emails and posts for daring to disagree about the applicability of the SECI model or Prediction Markets (the same person as it happens)" is inaccurate and silly. Good listserv members are truthful, not paranoid and eat their own dog food. It is good for all of us to have a steady appetite of diverse opinion.

Remember, you are a moderator, you can bounce anyone that you feel is 'abusing' you. (?) You can also dismiss yourself of course. The model is flipped. It is open. The groups owns the listserv. Moderation is done by the group, not some grand, self-appointed pooh-bah. This may ameliorate the pathologies you describe.

However, it would also be absurd to dismiss everyone or hide under your desk from everyone that may not think exactly like you. After all, what is point of discussion if not diversity?

You must accecpt that not everyone is a self-proclaimed, narrow-band Welsh Socialist. They probably have their own listserv, but would it not be rather boring for you?

Also, one side bar note is that lurkers often glean the most value from a discussion group.

Anyway, nice remarks. My expectations is that listserv will be around for a long while to come, but it will play a different, more ad hoc role in the collaborative ecosystem.

Cheers,

-j

Thanks for the post John and pleased to see your comments about disgreeing without being disagreeable and avoiding bating people. I would add flamelike tirades to the list as well.

The comment on the Troll" is not a reference to the Value Networks List Serve. That event took place in the Prediction Markets one, and off line comments from ActKM. My comments are neither inaccurate or silly and I have the full set of exchanges (including the abusive language one to one threatening emails) that would validate my statement.

My comments on moderation were linked to a list serve of which you do not play a part, which is moderated by one person. Although as a result of rational and sensible discussion, post my blog this has changed.

The Welsh Socialist bit is a bit of a nonsense. I write a blog arguing for active debate and exchange. I don't think anyone who knows me in the blogosphere or on list serves would ever see me as wanting to hide under a desk - I engage people in debate, even right wing free market crypto facisit neo-cons ..... (there we are, I can throw labels around as well.)