 sj |
||
|
||
DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
|
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy From: GUEST Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:22 AM Joe/Jeff, will post this here as help is not working and as Nigel above says as it's not relavant here it can be deleted. Dave McGlade/ dgmc came up with the excellent idea at folkinfo of incorporating searches in with the song. There would be other ways but the way we do it involves a little parsing of the song title then building up a link, e.g. for "Admiral Benbow" we produce: http://www.csufresno.edu//search?NS-search-page=results?NS-search-type=NS-BOOLEAN-QUERY&NS-max-records=20&NS-collection=Ballads&NS-query=Admiral%20AND%20Benbow We provide a similar search on Gracenote so that users can see if a CD containing a song they are interested in. Here is our gracenote one for the same song. http://www.gracenote.com/php/search-adv.php3?q=&qartist=&qdisc=&qtrack=Admiral+Benbow&genf%5B%5D=altcountry%2Cbluegrass%2Ccontempfolk%2Cgenfolk%2Ctradfolk%2Cgenceltic%2Cirishceltic%2Czydecocajun&n=10&image=Search Only a thought but it's quite easily done and I think a very useful feature. Jon Great idea, Jon. I like to post the whole text of the Traditional Ballad Index entry on a DTStudy song because it coves a lot of ground we don't have to cover again. I really like the idea of the Gracesnote Search. I had trouble narrowing Gracenote down, but you've set the search up very well. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: DTStudy: Format From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Jul 02 - 02:23 PM OK, we've had some experience with DTStudy threads, and they seem to be working quite well. I'm reluctand to do extensive editing on the threads quite yet, because I'm still not sure where we should go with this, and I'm working out some technical stuff with Pene. Let's keep playing with the idea and see how if develops. For now, here is the format I would like to see. If there are variations, I'll probably edit things to keep them standard. The thread title MUST contain the title DTStudy:, with a colon and no spaces - (generally) followed by the song title as listed in the Digital Tradition. The first message should begin with the following tag, which you may copy-paste:
After that, the first message should have the lyrics as posted in the Digital Tradition (right-click on the lyrics entry page and do a "view source," and copy-paste the entire text, beginning with the song title and going to the end - omit the garbage at the top). The first message should also include the Traditional Ballad Index entry, again done by a "view source." It would be nice to have the first message include links to other threads on the song. If any of these elements are missing from the first message, I'll add them, so don't get overly worried about following format. The second and following messages should contain commentaries, links, background information, and corrected or alternate versions of the lyrics and tune. I will delete or move off-topic messages. When I finally get around to editing the study thread, I may leave the original DTStudy thread intact, and create a new summary document, which may or may not be in the format of a thread. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks for all the good work Mudcatters have done so far of the DTStudy threads. I've had a lot of fun with them. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 3 From: MMario Date: 21 Jun 02 - 11:04 AM They *can* be; just remember there is a delay of at least 6 months before a correction would be included in a new edition of the DT - which might not then be posted to the MudCat. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 3 From: GUEST,Philippa Date: 21 Jun 02 - 10:50 AM I glanced at some Dt threads and the idea seems to be to assemble different versions of one song in one place and to give references to published sources and sound recordings (bibliography and discography). I don't see them being used for correcting ERRORS in the DT. I had been thinking of starting a DT study about Daniel O'Connell's Steam Engine / Making Babies By Steam but all the information is already in the thread - with very little chitchat. The main problem is the search engine - although the song in the DT is entitled "Making Babies By Steam", I can't find it on the alphabetical DT list and nor by doing a search of "Making Babies" or "Babies By Steam". A search for "Daniel O'Connell gives me both threads and DT. But if I click at the DT version for forum discussions, I get one message for a thread about nonsense songs to dance tunes. No link to the two threads which contain lyrics, under the title "Daniel O'Connell's Steam Engine". If the clickie at the DT page sent people to the relevant thread, they'd have plentty of background info. I don't want to spend time copying sets of lyrics and having to add in the line breaks again. I just wanted the tune corrected and Joe Offer has now been duly alerted. There is a minor error in the transcription - "''An Buachaill_n Donn'" , "Buachaill_n" should read "Buachaillí". It's looking to me as if making corrections isn't the function of the DT study threads. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Matthew Edwards Date: 05 Jun 02 - 04:29 PM Sorry to be late in joining the party, but I am fully in support of this project. I've often found the song texts in the DT needed amending, or lacked cross-references to variant versions, so that while the DT can be helpful in reminding me of some elements of a song that I'd been trying to track down, it has also proved very misleading where the version quoted in the DT is somebody's transcription of a song collated from various sources by some revivalist singer(s) so that I've no idea how it relates to the traditional versions. I'll contribute where I feel I can offer some useful information, in particular where I can indicate field recordings of source singers of a song so that those who want to hear how a song sounded to people who had inherited it via oral transmission in a living community can do so. I'm working on "George Collins" at present and I'll post the results to a DTStudy thread as soon as I can. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 02 - 01:58 AM The foreign-language lyrics are great for posting at Mudcat. So far, however, few have made it into the Digital Tradition - especially if they are in languages that use other than standard English characters. The fadas and tildes cause too many technical problems. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 02 Jun 02 - 08:42 PM Following my last comment, and allowing for apathy, I was ready to save my latest comments on "Clare's Dragoons" for a while, but I log in (getting home from the club (1.00 am) and both Clare's Dragoons and Spancil Hill have been reactivated. We must have people who find it easier to put the time in at weekends! So an ongoing "Permathread" listing the DTStudies (McG's term, not mine! *BG*) would certainly be a good idea. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 01 Jun 02 - 09:33 AM OK, now I understand. Thanks for clearing it up for me. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 31 May 02 - 08:47 PM For Guest's benefit, the proposal so far is that "Study" threads are a means of correcting and expanding entries already in the DT. New threads dealing with other songs continue as they always have; unedited and cumulative, awaiting harvesting for the database. I don't think that it would be practicable to single some new threads out for special treatment at this stage; what we would hope is that harvesters will wait a while for information to accumulate rather than harvest prematurely as has often happened in the past, which is one of the reasons why so many corrections to the database now need to be made. For myself, I am very reluctant to post lyrics in languages other than English unless I can provide decent translations (though I have done it from time to time in response to specific requests) and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that no song should be harvested until a tune has been provided for it. That's another issue, though, and not my decision. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 May 02 - 08:28 PM What I'd envisage would be a permathread or equivalent which would have a list, with links to the DT, of all songs which have been DTStudied.
The DT entry linked to would indicate that it had been DTStudied, and would have a link to a page consisting of the edited DTStudy result(which probably would take the form of a set of notes or short article); and also it wold have a link to the DTStudy thread, unedited, in the Mudcat archives.
I used the expression "DTStudied", but I hope that wouldn't be used in practice. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 31 May 02 - 04:47 PM Uh, I suggested some days ago now (probably in part 1)that somebody get the threads that Guest, Philippa was posting lyrics and information on included in the DT Study program. Not that it is just Philippa, even though she is a goddess of Gaelic lyrics posting! MMario is transcribing, Aine and others are adding, etc Badai na Scadan is one of the threads--dunno or understand exactly how the DT Study proposal is being implemented in the here and now? Organic is good, but how do we get some of these other music threads in the program? Is there an application? A fee? An audition? ;-)
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 31 May 02 - 03:51 AM Apart from searching for DTStudy in the filter, is there a way to keep the (edited) permathreads at the top of the list (as with the "Big 3" permathreads ? I am sure more people may be interested enough to help with particular songs, who only log in occasionally. "Cutty Wren" has already dropped off a 1 day refresh. Obviously, if this system goes ahead then there will be a limit to the number of threads which can be prioritised in this way, How about a single permathread like the "Big 3", but with cross reference to each of the DTStudies currently ongoing ? (including the 2 proposal threads). This thread is obviously due for editing, or we'll be on part three. If it gets edited, could part 1 get edited as well, then part 2 can be shifted onto part 1 (making a smaller part 1 thread, and leaving plenty of room for part two to continue growing? Cheers Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: John in Brisbane Date: 30 May 02 - 10:33 AM How can I start this on a positive note? First off I haven't read Part 1 of this thread - my apologies. I was at a festival earlier this year and I heard a person deriding the quality of a couple of Aussie trad songs in the DT - "How c'd y'expect a Yank t' get the words roit f'r Click Go The Shears?" If there is a widespread desire to amend the words to get them 'roit', then there are plenty of source documents for Aussie trad songs. Aussie songs have in many cases been thooroughly documented. I don't mind plodding along slowly on this, notwithstanding that others may be better qualified to do so. Is this the type of thing that was intended by this serious thread? Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 30 May 02 - 08:15 AM Thanks for the clarification, John. I had no idea that 40-odd posts could be such a problem on some set-ups. Perhaps McGrath was right and I was wrong; though I'd still be against splitting threads as a general rule at much under 100; however, music threads don't usually get anything like that long. Greg would certainly be a useful man to have around more. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 29 May 02 - 09:52 PM Guest & Malcolm- I am using Web TV (ADSL) and I have no problems reading threads up to around 100-120 posts.However, I feel Guest is correct when he states that I will have little if anything to contribute to an acedemic thread, I believe the member that has problems reading threads more than 40 posts long is McGraths friend greg stevens, who I feel could have something useful to contribute to such a thread, as I know from chatting to him via PM's that he is very knowledgeable about about folk songs and their history, but is currently unable to contribute much due to the limitations of his system (cable TV & NTL Digibox). John from hull |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 08:32 PM Ian, I understand what you ae saying, but squabbles over 'my post was better than your post' aren't really going to help But I'm just a GUEST
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 06:25 PM Joe Why did you remove the link I put in the Spancil Hill thread to the Irish Independent article? I'm not cpmplaining about my post being removed but it had other information and was essentially an objective source (something we're rather short on).
Just asking |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST,Ed Date: 29 May 02 - 04:44 PM Joe, I believe that you are in touch with Bruce Olson? Once we sort out the teething problems of these threads, might you email him and ask him to come back? He'd be a real help here. Ed Bruce is never far away, Ed. He ususally drops in when there's something that need his expertise - but a few times I've dropped him an e-mail and ask him to comment. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 May 02 - 02:57 PM OK, I edited down the DTStudy thread on Spancil Hill, which Alice started admirably. I proofed and summarized what I could, and transferred the extraneous messages over to one of the standard Spancil Hill threads. We have a number of versions and parodies posted in the Abdul, etc thread. I think all those versions ought to stay in the thread, and we'll let Dick pick which ones he wants to put in the DT. It looks like the commentary on the song might be ready for a summary - anybody want to write one? Haven't checked Cutty Wren. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 May 02 - 01:48 PM Myself I tend to believe that just going ahead and doing things and finding out what works and what doesn't work is generally a better way than working it all out in advance. (Not always - bridge building is an example of when it's not a good idea.)
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 12:23 PM Alice I'm sorry you've been used as the butt of an argument here, especially as I'm - at least in part - to blame. The problem is that we haven't really worked out what these things should be yet. My gripe (if gripe it is) is just that. I noticed that you did ask Joe if this was the right way to set things out at the top of your Spancil Hill thread. I don't think we know that yet, so nobody can really give any guidance till it's been thrashed out. Meantime, there's no problem with another thread on Spancil Hill, and this one has come up with a few things.
:-(
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Alice Date: 29 May 02 - 12:15 PM I thought the goal was to find lyrics in the DT that need correction or elucidation. I didn't intend to just start another S.Hill thread. I quoted the Christy Moore version in the DT because, as has been pointed out, it is quite different than the original lyrics. Joe, please delete the Spancil Hill DTStudy thread. It seems all it did was start another argument. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 29 May 02 - 11:44 AM You don't need to tell me about the usefulness of printed sources! It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the potential importance of material available hidden away in old, sometimes long, threads; some of which (many of Bruce Olson's contributions, for example) simply is not available in printed sources, or supercedes them. That said, I daresay that I may have been a little over-sweeping in my original remark, though I do feel that web tv imposes considerable handicaps on anyone wishing to use the web for more than occasional dabbling, and that it is not always pracical to set the pace according to the slowest runner. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 May 02 - 11:32 AM The point, Malcolm (and Ian-the-GUEST, whom I take it isn't the same as GUEST,"senile"), "trawling through old threads in search of information" is not the only way of getting information. Printed sources, for example, are still pretty useful. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 11:26 AM Jeri Sorry. I had no quarrel with what you said, nor did I feel you hadn't made a contribution, nor did I think I was saying you are stupid. I'm just saying what I feel, not trying to make anyone look small. You're quite right about questioning assumptions, I'm only saying that if a thread is going to be the basis for serious study then it would make sense to start with what we have already up front. :-(
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 29 May 02 - 11:24 AM When I said to begin with, elisions should probably be indicated, I should have made my meaning more clear. I meant that editorial elisions in a post quoted from another thread should probably be indicated -at first, at any rate- in order not to give the impression that the original is being quoted as it first appeared. It may be that editing may inadvertently alter the tone or intent of the passage, so some indication of editorial intervention may be desirable. In many cases, of course, only a brief précis of substantive information in a message may be needed. Jokes about farting and the like, unless they are germane to the song under examination, can of course safely be deleted without qualm or reference. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Jeri Date: 29 May 02 - 11:16 AM IanC, thanks for the clarification. As for me, I thought I could offer something, but obviously not the right something. I can feel stupid enough without someone telling me I am. Good luck with this - I'll continue to read even though I doubt I'll contribute. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 11:06 AM Agree with you GUEST, Come on, Ian C Show us how to do it. Post a thread, then me might be able to lean from your great wisdom |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 10:52 AM Jesus Ian! Do it all yourself then! Apologies that my contributions don't match your definition of 'academic rigour' You say you haven't time to do it yourself, yet manage to criticise those who try. PS Fuck off! |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 10:48 AM Jeri My problem is simply that the thread is going nowhere. I didn't say there was any contradiction with my information, just that people chose to essentially ignore it (and I'm not even complaining about that). If you read the "Where is Spancil Hill" thread that Alice originally quotes from, you'll find it's better by far that what we've got so far in the new "study" thread. What's the point in having a "study" thread which is just another thread and which doesn't even give you all the useful information which is already presented in other threads? There needs to be some summary and synthesis, as I have already said twice. If there is already quite a lot of information in disparate threads (as with this one), then a study thread really has to start that way. Also, I can't actually think of a reason for starting a "Study" thread unless there is already quite a lot of information there. As I said, I'm probably being pessimistic ... |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 10:39 AM elisions should probably be indicated So I should make a note of every time Catspaw ruins a thread with a joke about farting, of the level that might be expected of a 5 year old? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Jeri Date: 29 May 02 - 10:28 AM IanC, I don't really understand the problem with the Spancil Hill thread. The information you posted adds to, rather than contradicts, what's there. (Maybe I'm missing something?) Also, if original assumptions can be questioned, so can subsequent ones. Facts are better than assumtions, but even facts can be wrong. It would also be nice to have links to major threads about songs in the DTStudy threads. May be too much work though. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 29 May 02 - 10:26 AM Of course it's perfectly true that someone with an old browser or a web tv connection may very well have much of use to say or to do, but they will have a lot of trouble trawling through old threads in search of information, as many are considerably longer than the first part of this one. As to banter and so forth; it doesn't really matter if people post chat or irrelevant material to Study threads, as that can be deleted once any substantive information has been extracted. To save making work for the eventual editor(s), though, they might like to exercise just a little restraint; though many will probably not read the whole thread before posting to it, of course. Material copied from previous discussions, on the other hand, can be edited down before inclusion; though to begin with, elisions should probably be indicated. No criticism of Alice implied, incidentally; just what I hope is good advice. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 May 02 - 08:19 AM Just an extra thought, which would need help from those actually responsible for the DT; could those songs for which a DTStudy thread has been started have a clicky in the DT to show that an update (at some future time) was under consideration ? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Jon Freeman Date: 29 May 02 - 08:13 AM I wouldn't get too disheartened just yet Ian and Ed. I do however believe that if this project is to succeed without the more formal type of organisational structure that I'd proposed that people need to be prepared to take advice and even criticism from those most experienced in putting together scholarly pieces of work. Banter, extraneous information and presenting speculation as fact are all capable of severely degrading this project. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST,Ed Pellow Date: 29 May 02 - 07:48 AM To my mind, one of the main issues is in terms of differentiating these threads from the usual Mudcat 'chat' In fairness to those contributors who have already added extraneous information to the nascent DTStudy threads, they haven't perhaps understood the purpose, and have hence added their halfpennyworth assuming it was 'just another thread' The prevailing culture here is certainly in favour of 'banter' as opposed to scholarship. Given that Max opposes spliting the forum in any way, it it difficult to see how this project can, in practice, work here. A shame Ed |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 06:14 AM Nigel Problem is that serious contributions tend to get discouraged. I might try to provide further verification for the newspaper article I posted in the Spancil Hill thread and more background information, but what's the point when people start from the point-of-view that they'd much rather believe the unverified rumour that is simply circulating than try to confirm what is the truth. Until you've done all the work yourself (which can often take ages), nobody wants to know. What you are suggesting about editing would seem to me to make life very difficult for an editor ... quite a lot of work, and an endless watching eye. I haven't got infinite time and neither have you, and we've both got better things to do with most of it. I'd rather spend what time I've got in trying to sort out at least a small corner, albeit knowing I won't get thanked much for it. Others may want to do things differently, and I'm pleased to support them in that. My worry is that we can expend an awful lot of energy getting more-or-less nowhere. What I can see so far only confirms this view. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic. Maybe I should just stick to quizzes.
;-) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 May 02 - 05:51 AM Of course, "Guests" don't have an individual's list of postings laus Deo |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 05:42 AM wondered whether deleted/edited messages will continue to be shown in an individual's list of postings? Nigel, Write a really nasty, slanderous, racist personal attack on a member, and you'll soon find out *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 May 02 - 05:39 AM IanC: your past attempt is(possibly) a reason why this new system is more promising. The thread can be edited, and any unnecessary detail removed. If this is done in a timely fashion it may even remove the need to provide thread splits. Presumably the editor will keep an electronic or paper version of the thread prior to editing, so that if a disproved suggestion is later repeated he can PM the originator to let him/her know of the previous outcome. He can also put a short note after the message in the thread to the effect "This theory has been previously disproved, this message will be removed shortly, the poster has been advised by PM" This will avoid the need for others to repeat comments. Sorry if this message seems long-winded, but it is an obvious candidate for later reduction/deletion, once others have commented. I have wondered whether deleted/edited messages will continue to be shown in an individual's list of postings ? Cheers Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 05:35 AM Guest (Ian perhaps?) ... What happened next? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 29 May 02 - 05:24 AM Ian, I think you're being a little unfair regarding your 'Child' thread. You started your final message on the thread with: Thanks folks, this seems to be developing into a really lovely thread Changed your mind, now?
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: IanC Date: 29 May 02 - 05:03 AM Like I said earlier, I'm a little sad this has happened the way it has. I'd been working on an idea like this, but hopefully starting with a reasonably clinical synthesis/summary. The Spancil Hill thread is becoming an illustration of what happens if you don't. It also shows another Mudcat tendency, that of trying to "diss" information which is honestly provided in order to test statements made here. It seems we're only ever happy with confirmatory evidence. My training shows this is worthless; a correct picture can only be built up by trying to "break" a hypothetical position. I shouldn't have been surprised, I suppose ... the one time I tried a serious discursive thread (about F. J. Child) most of what I got (except for Malcolm's contributions, which were uniformly polite and well-informed) was abuse for being nasty to their favourite hero. This is despite the fact that few of the contributors had any idea of what Professor Child had or had not done. BTW Kevin ... you twigged what I was trying to do on that thread, but it was to little avail. (I'm not GUEST)
Oh well ... Best regards |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST,Chris Date: 29 May 02 - 05:02 AM We're just going to work on it - together Fair enough Joe, but we'll probably end up with a camel instead of the horse we wanted. Chris btw camels *do* sing folk songs... |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 28 May 02 - 10:52 PM No need for a chain of command, Jon. We're just going to work on it - together. I'm hoping people will pick some of their favorites and start DTStudy threads on their own (subject to editing). -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 May 02 - 09:23 PM Right Joe, but how about some proposals to maybe stop this BS though like maybe buidling up teams and directions... How about content editor in chief, Malcolm Douglas with a team and technical director Joe Offer? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 28 May 02 - 09:16 PM OK, folks, back on topic. This part of Mudcat is reserved for serious music study. Bullshit will be deleted. Go to the "BS:" threads if you want to squabble. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 28 May 02 - 09:00 PM McGrath, That 'one person' is I assume 'John from Hull' I don't think we need worry about his contributions if we're looking at an academic discussion |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 May 02 - 08:55 PM Whether it's customary or not, at least one person with a lot of useful things to say has indicated that he finds difficulty in downloading threads with more than 40 or so posts on them, because the connection he's on, via TV rather than a PC, works that way.
And I've got a good connection through a cable, in a country with a pretty good communication network - but even so I find that 100 threads takes a long time, and if I log in at certain times of day they may time out.
And thanks for using a name, Ian. I only decided to try to ignore the minority of GUESTS who don't use a name after running up against some pretty unpleasant ones. (But please let's not drift into argument that here.) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2 From: GUEST Date: 28 May 02 - 08:52 PM You would only have problems with long threads if you used a very old version of Netscape. WebTV, I don't know about. What I think Malcolm was trying to say was that anyone without access to decent tools is unlikely to create a masterpiece. I agree with that, and I'm sorry to say it, but I think this whole idea is fundamentally flawed. Malcolm wants something very different to Joe who wants something different still to the worrying senile Kevin McGrath |
| Share Thread: |