Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only BAD IDEA, BAD MODERATOR Quiet protest Re: Quiet protest automatic reply function Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Blake List Change my vote Re: automatic reply function Re: automatic reply function Re: Blake list change Re: automatic reply function relentless... Re: automatic reply function Re: relentless... Re: automatic reply function Re: automatic reply function Comparisons of 'The Tiger ' and 'The Lamb' CFP: Ninth Annual Conference on Linguistics and Literature Blake's Notebook Request for help ----- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:51:25 -0500 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: "Seth T. Ross" Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've noticed this in the past few days, and I'm a little curious about the reasoning behind it. Although the accidental distribution of personal replies is an occasional problem on all the academic lists to which I subscribe, this is the only one that has gone to the reply-to-sender format. For most others, you have to change the "to" line only if you *don't* want it to go to the rest of the list. It sounds as though you expect most replies to be private, with public replies as the exception. Most of my replies *are* intended for the list; thus this change will mean more work. I predict a lot of questions appearing on the list, and responses moving only through private channels. Is that the kind of cyber-community we want? Just my thoughts. Jennifer Michael ----- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:15:21 -0500 (CDT) From: HOWARD CASKEY To: "J. Michael" Cc: "Seth T. Ross" , blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, J. Michael wrote: > I've noticed this in the past few days, and I'm a little curious about the > reasoning behind it. Although the accidental distribution of personal > replies is an occasional problem on all the academic lists to which I > subscribe, this is the only one that has gone to the reply-to-sender > format. For most others, you have to change the "to" line only if you > *don't* want it to go to the rest of the list. It sounds as though you > expect most replies to be private, with public replies as the exception. > Most of my replies *are* intended for the list; thus this change will mean > more work. I predict a lot of questions appearing on the list, and > responses moving only through private channels. Is that the kind of > cyber-community we want? > > Just my thoughts. > > Jennifer Michael > > I have to agree with Jennifer. The reason I joined this list was to learn more about Blake's writings in a public forum. This change would seem to promote the opposite, allowing private conversations to become the standard. As I was just recently introduced to Blake's writings, my understanding of these writing is limited. I have been using this listserv as a way to direct my study. It would seem a shame to "lock up" this knowledge in the name of convinance. Howard Caskey ----- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:28:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: BAD IDEA, BAD MODERATOR Message-Id: <199609270028.RAA21674@igc2.igc.apc.org> I agrree with J. Michael & H. Caskey. THe decision to have replies go only to the sender is a desatrous one. It makes automatic replies to the entire list impossible. Pleease reverse this harmful policy at once. ----- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:58:03 -0500 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Quiet protest Message-Id: <96092621580373@womenscol.stephens.edu> I have entered the list name in order to register my agreement with Jennifer and others that thechange to the configuration of the list can only damage the communication. Please, let's go back. Tom Dillingham ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:03:00 MET From: "D.W. DOERRBECKER" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Quiet protest Message-Id: <1B310AB52BA@netwareserver.uni-trier.de> September 27th, 1996 Yesterday, Tom Dillingham wrote > I have entered the list name in order to register my > agreement with Jennifer and others that the change to the > configuration of the list can only damage the communication. > Please, let's go back. I have done the same, and for the same reasons. --DW Doerrbecker ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:42:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Trevor Smith To: blake@albion.com Subject: automatic reply function Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I was the one who urged Seth to change the default reply function from "entire list" to "sender only." Not too long ago several ventings of spleen spurted onto the whole list. I judged that reply to sender would allow people to respond freely without distracting the list into lengthy discussions of manners, and that those who wished to send to the whole list instead could easily do so. Perhaps those old days have now passed, or perhaps spilling spleen over our colleagues is not as distressing to us as I thought it was. In any case, please send your opinions on the matter to me if you wish to (if you use the reply function, it will go automatically to me and not to the whole list :)), and I will tally them. The early returns are 100% in favor of returning to the whole list default. -- mts Mark Trevor Smith mts231f@nic.smsu.edu Professor of English 417-836-5107 Southwest Missouri State University Springield MO 65804 ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:47:56 -0400 From: Sjnevil@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Message-Id: <960927074756_531117660@emout01.mail.aol.com> This seems a quite silly change.Please reconsider.Lurkers like me will be left with nothing to read! Stephen Neville ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:29:45 -0500 (EST) From: WATT To: jmichael Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake list change: replies go to sender only Message-Id: <0645290727091996/A28283/OVID/11A9D9DD2800*@MHS> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >I've noticed this in the past few days, and I'm a little curious about the >reasoning behind it. Although the accidental distribution of personal >replies is an occasional problem on all the academic lists to which I >subscribe, this is the only one that has gone to the reply-to-sender >format. For most others, you have to change the "to" line only if you >*don't* want it to go to the rest of the list. It sounds as though you >expect most replies to be private, with public replies as the exception. >Most of my replies *are* intended for the list; thus this change will mean >more work. I predict a lot of questions appearing on the list, and >responses moving only through private channels. Is that the kind of >cyber-community we want? > >Just my thoughts. > >Jennifer Michael > > Dear Seth et al. I agree with Jennifer Michael. It's more trouble to have to re-address my replies to the list than when, occasionally, I want to send a note privately. In fact, when I stumble on private ones from time to time, on this list and others, I simply hit the delete key. It's a good little ethical exercise to have that voice come on in one's head that gentlemen (and ladies) don't read other persons' mail. Jim Watt> ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 10:33:08 -0700 From: TED ROSS To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake List Change Message-Id: <324C0FD4.4714@MINDSPRING.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think the list change is going to do what was intended - to encourage private responses when the writer is flaming some poor soul on the list. People in high choler will simply manually send the response to the list. Blake wanted to reach a wide audience; Blakeans in high dudgeon do too. In view of that I would suggest going back to the old way of doing things. If that is not in the cards, all e-mail viewers have address books, so list subscribers should just create an entry for Blake@Albion.com. Thanks to all the scholars for my continuing edification. Ted Ross ERATO@mindspring.com ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 10:44 EDT From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: my vote Message-Id: <9609271444.AA16319@uu6.psi.com> I agree with Jennifer Michael, too. Let's keep our automatic replies public. ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:44:32 -0400 From: MTavish@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: <960927114432_294807819@emout13.mail.aol.com> Please return to the original send function--K. Middleton ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 12:44 CST From: MLGrant@president-po.president.uiowa.edu To: blake@albion.com, Mark Trevor Smith Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: <199609271751.MAA23667@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> I vote for "all" as default. Somehow my local system has "sender only" for everything; it overrides whatever the setting is for various lists, so that I have to manually change it if I want something different. Often, in replying to the Blake list, I've forgotten to make the change, sent messages that reached the sender only, and wondered why I didn't get any feedback. Since I rarely have time to compose messages that's disappointing. For those who can have "reply to all" as default, I certainly recommend it. It's a pain to remember to change the setting. -- MLJ ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:03:48 -0400 From: TomD3456@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake list change Message-Id: <960927140347_531352545@emout15.mail.aol.com> Seth-- I too prefer the old default of responding to the list, rather than only to the sender. --Tom Devine ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 13:52:44 -0700 From: Seth T. Ross To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: <9609272052.AA03753@albion.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mark Trevor Smith writes: > please send your opinions on the matter to me if you wish to > (if you use the reply function, it will go automatically to > me and not to the whole list :)), and I will tally them. The > early returns are 100% in favor of returning to the whole > list default. -- mts Yes, please send feedback on this to Mark -- I'll rely on his leading editorial role and judgment. From a sysadmin point-of-view, it's considered better form to have mailing lists set to "reply to sender" by default. I've also been moderately concerned about bandwidth issues on the albion.com mail server. On the other hand, the Blake list has generally run very smoothly over the past three years -- the configuration change isn't a technical necessity. I certainly don't want to decrease the congeniality of the list or tamper with the qualities that make this forum so special. In your service, Seth ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:51:33 EDT From: "PETERSON MATTHEW JOHN" To: blake@albion.com Subject: relentless... Message-Id: <22EE3256751@rocknroll.umcs.maine.edu> To all who keep on about the current format of the list: Since I have joined this list I have not even begun to witness the amount of effort in response to Blake's actual works, as I have to the format of Blake's list. --mp ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:32:03 -0500 (CDT) From: William Neal Franklin To: Mark Trevor Smith Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dang!!! 100% agreement among such as Dillingham and Dumain and Michael seems pretty persuasive to me. I agree too. If this is a discussion, then let's please keep it open to all. ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:49:00 -0500 From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: relentless... Message-Id: <96092719490011@wc.stephens.edu> And your point is? ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:42:57 -0500 From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: <96092719425718@wc.stephens.edu> I am surprised by the suggestion that the new default is more common. I subscribe to at least 6 academic lists, all of which are set so that "r" goes to the whole list unless otherwise specified. Tom Dillingham ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 22:00:18 -0400 From: DrZZ113@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: automatic reply function Message-Id: <960927220016_531739243@emout01.mail.aol.com> Keep the reply function as it originally was please. Thanks. ----- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:06:26 -0400 From: PHutchence@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Comparisons of 'The Tiger ' and 'The Lamb' Message-Id: <960929090625_296227669@emout03.mail.aol.com> Plaese can anyone help my son who is at secondary school and has been asked to provide a discussion on the two above poems- on how the two poems contrast and how it shows the differences humans can behave. He has not been taught how to do critical analysis of poetry and I would be grateful if anyone could offer any guidance. Paul Hutchence Lancaster England ----- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:49:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Suzanne D. Green" To: blake@albion.com Subject: CFP: Ninth Annual Conference on Linguistics and Literature Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII CALL FOR PAPERS: PLEASE POST LANGUAGING: THE NINTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE Sponsored by the Department of English and the Graduate Students in English (GSEA) at the University of North Texas 7-8 February 1997 Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, Denton, Texas KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Mark Turner, University of Maryland Author of Death is the Mother of Beauty (1987), Reading Minds (1991), and The Literary Mind (forthcoming) George Lakoff, University of California, Berkeley Author of Metaphors We Live By (with Mark Johnson, 1980), Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (1987), and Moral Politics (1996) SPECIAL FEATURE: "Languaging" with Lakoff and Turner, co-authors of More than Cool Reason (1989). Collaborative Address. Luncheon hosted by Haj Ross. Although we especially encourage submissions dealing with cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, and linguistic analysis of literature, we welcome abstracts dealing with any aspect of linguistics or literature, including: Literary Analysis Linguistic Analysis Composition Theory ESL/EFL Critical Theory Theoretical Linguistics Composition/ESL Pedagogy 1st/2nd Language Acquisition Minority Literature Women's Studies Film Theory/Popular Culture Creative Writing DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 15 October 1996 Notified by: 30 November 1996 Conference proceedings will be published. Creative submissions of poetry, fiction or essays are also welcome, as are proposals for complete symposia. Instructions for paper abstracts, symposia proposals, and creative submissions appear below. Submissions from graduate students are encouraged. E-mailed or Faxed proposals are accepted. For more information, please contact: Languaging: the Ninth Annual Conference on Linguistics and Literature University of North Texas Department of English P. O. Box 13827 Denton, TX 76203 E-mail: LINGLIT@UNT.EDU Fax: 817/565-4355 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAPER ABSTRACTS AND CREATIVE SUBMISSIONS: Abstracts for papers should be no longer than 250 words (approximately 1 page) and should EXCLUDE name and affiliation. Please do not send full text of critical papers. Creative submissions should include the full text of the piece, and should also EXCLUDE name and affiliation. On a separate page, please send the following information: Name Affiliation Paper title Postal address E-mail address Phone number FAX Audiovisual needs Status (graduate student, faculty) INSTRUCTIONS FOR SYMPOSIA PROPOSALS: Proposals for symposia must include: -an overall abstract (2 page maximum) outlining the nature of the symposium as a whole -a short abstract for the overall symposium (250 word maximum), to place in the program -a short abstract (250 word maximum) from each presenter, for the conference program As above, these abstracts should be submitted anonymously. On a separate page, please send the following information: Symposium title Symposium paper title Name of organizer(s) Name of paper presenter Affiliation of organizer(s) Affiliation of presenter Postal address of organizer(s) Postal address of presenter Phone number of organizer(s) Phone number of presenter E-mail address of organizer(s) E-mail address of presenter FAX number of organizers FAX number of presenter Audiovisual needs WHEN SUBMITTING PAPERS: Include all of your personal data on a separate page, as abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by selected faculty members. Submit 3 copies of abstracts, creative pieces, or symposia proposals. Include a WordPerfect 6.x compatible or ASCII disk copy of your work identified with your name, affiliation and paper title when submitting by regular mail. If your abstract includes symbols that are difficult to transcribe, a disk copy is especially important. Limit your abstract to 250 words (c. 1 page). Abstracts of accepted papers will be included in the conference program. However, because our staff is strictly volunteer, we can not promise to include abstracts which are longer than the 250 word limit. Direct questions to Suzanne Green or David Caudle at LINGLIT@UNT.EDU ____________________________________________________________________________ | Suzanne D. Green | Direct questions about the University of North Texas | 1997 Languaging Conference to: Department of English | P. O. Box 13827 | Linglit@unt.edu Denton, TX 76203 | sdgreen@jove.acs.unt.edu 817/565-2050 | djcaudle@jove.acs.unt.edu ____________________________________________________________________________ ----- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:11:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Gourlay To: Blake Online Subject: Blake's Notebook Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Anyone on this list who does not have a copy of Blake's Notebook in the wonderful facsimile/type-facsimile edition created by David Erdman and Donald K. Moore should be interested in this: although the paper edition has been remaindered through various wholesale dealers in the past, this is the first time I've seen it offered by a mail-order remainder house. Edward Hamilton Bookseller in Falls Village CT 06031-5000 (whole address) is selling copies for $13.95 plus $3.00 shipping (no matter how many you order the total shipping charge is $3.00) (no tax except in CT). The stock number (you need this) is 062839. This outfit does not do phone or credit card orders, so you have to send them a check. ----- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 96 09:23:06 -0400 From: church@utb1.utb.edu (Karen Church) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Request for help Message-Id: <9610091323.AA14655@uu6.psi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Blake-Listmembers (if anyone *is* out there presently), I wonder if someone might be able to come up with a pertinent citation or two for a pair of students (mine) who are writing a dialogued research paper on Puritanism and "The Mental Traveller." Our library has an extremely limited Blake collection--about a dozen books and nothing basically on "The Mental Traveller." Students pay for ILL here, so they would really appreciate some indication in advance that books they order will say more than a few words about their subject. Thank you in advance. Karen Church Department of English and Speech University of Texas at Brownsville church@utb1.utb.edu