Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:11:34 -0800


Subject: Re: Openness

As one who is neither linguist nor dialectologist, I agree with the

Allan, Terry and the McKinzeys. I haven't found the traffic on the

list excessive, and, even if some of the questions could be

considered naive by professional linguists, they are certainly not

as frequent as on some lists I've seen. If someone asks a very general

question to the list, I try to respond to them personally so as not to

add to the duplication of answers that invariably appears.

I realize that the list is NOT a substitute for standard reference

sources, and it might not be useful to have a FAQ since the answer

would often be "See DARE". Perhaps a message clearly defining the scope

and purposes of the list should be sent to new subscribers (maybe to all

subscribers) to remind us what we, as members of the list, consider

appropriate postings.

Terry and Jesse, is there an option to receive the list in digest form?

I have found that it is a lot easier to keep track of lists that can

be sent in this way? -- Thanks.



On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Kim & Rima McKinzey wrote:

Let's not bite the hand that extends itself to us in friendship....

YES!!!!! Allan, as usual, has put it all very well. Not all of us

"professionals" are in academia with full departments of research material

at our immediate beck and call. Please let us not contribute to the

stereotype of rarified, patronizing Academic.

I work at home and have a good many of what would be considered "basic"

reference materials, but not all. There are many posted topics about which

I have absolutely no interest. There are many about which I do. But

that's why God invented the delete key. None of us has an infinite amount

of time to spend on e-mail - much less the time sink of the Web.

I was feeling entirely too intimidated to stick my two cents in (and then

annoyed at feeling intimidated), but I just had to agree with Allan (also