![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2007: Explanation: Missing Submissions
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@SHAKSPER.NET) Date: 11/09/07
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0760 Friday, 9 November 2007 From: Hardy M. Cook <editor@shaksper.net> Date: Friday, November 09, 2007 Subject: Explanation: Missing Submissions On occasion, I receive a query from a member who has made a submission to SHAKSPER but who has not seen that submission posted to the membership. By way of possible explanation, the inbox for my editor@shaksper.net account is the place where all submissions to SHAKSPER end up before I edit them into digests to distribute to the list members. For many reasons, high among them that SHAKSPER has been around for eighteen years, my editor account receives on average 1,000 SPAM or administrative messages per day. I try to delete these messages as rapidly and as efficiently as I can, striving nonetheless not to inadvertently delete a legitimate message to the list or to me. However, with such a large number of messages to wade through every day, I obviously make mistakes and inadvertently delete some legitimate messages. Another explanation for my possibly missing a submission for the list involves the new procedures Eric and I initiated so that listserv does not distribute SPAMs to members of the list. These procedures create an additional step for me, confirming the validity of a submission to the list once I have sent it for distribution. I have on some occasions sent a digest for distribution but not confirmed that message, resulting in that digest that I thought I had been distributed not actually being sent out to members. A third, but rare, explanation for why I submission might not get posted to the membership is that I have simply ignored that submission without writing to the submitter to explain my reasons. My ignoring a submission rarely happens; and when it does the reason is most likely that I have found the submission either too offensive even for me to distribute or that I have corresponded with the submitter on numerous occasions in the past to explain my reasoning only to discover myself in a conversational loop with the submitter, a loop of e-mail exchanges in which I explain and the submitter responds because he or she either does not understand my position or will not accept my decision. My years of editing/moderating this list have taught me the dangers of trying "to fight" with a tar baby and taught me that some persons are so convinced of the "rightness," the "correctness," the TRUTH of their interpretation/theory/position that the generally accepted methods of academic discourse or evidence or, for that matter, facts cannot sway them to deviate or accept that others, perhaps less enlightened than they, might not agree with what is so obviously clear to them. In any case, should you not see a message you have submitted to the list, you should resend that message, indicating in the Subject Line that what you are sending is a RESUBMISSION. Please don't write me to explain why I did not post your submission; just resend it. If I have made a mistake and overlooked your submission the first time, I will distribute it with my next series of digests for the list. If, on the other hand, I have ignored your submission the first time, the chances are very good that I will ignore it again. If you cannot figure out why I might have rejected your post, you may write me to ask, but again please don't assume that I will write back automatically. My time is very precious now. Hardy M. Cook Editor of SHAKSPER _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||