----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul/Celine Kossart" <kozys@t...>
To: <BRHSlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Bulletin Philosophy
>
> Loren Johnson's <Aeolus3@a...> recent comments include:
>
> >The Burlington Bulletin is a fine publication.
>
> No disagreement there. I whole heartedly agree. However, appeal too
> limited to the vast majority of the members varied interests.
>
>
> >I haven't seen #37 yet (my membership lapsed), but I am sure it will have
> >information and photographs I can use - at some point.
>
> I agree but the statement _at some point_ makes _my_ point. How long -
> years? Still better to offer something useful NOW to the greatest number
> of people and save the big guns as special annual issues or whatever to
> those who want that _specific_ information.
>
>
> >The other thing that members also must realize is Hol and Mike are not
> paid to >edit, write, or produce The Bulletin or the Zephyr.
>
> Let me go on record as publicly praising the tremendous efforts of Hol and
> Mike and saying thank you. I am sure it is a labor of love, so to speak,
> but they have _chosen_ to undertake the Bulletin project. However, being
> paid or not has nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make.
>
>
>
> Proposition:
>
> Why don't we simply leave the Bulletins as they are - don't mess with
> success, so to speak? But, use the Zephyr as the medium to disseminate
> information in a format which offers the greatest amount of _varied_ (read
> immediately useful) information to the largest number of the membership at
> one time?
>
Sorry, Paul - but this gets difficult for me, too - how would the society do
that . . . . a referendum of the membership on subject matter? A (pardon
the expression during an election year) "Scientific Poll"?
A majority vote would probably result in a diesel-only "decade before the
fallen flags" posture for our publications, meaning that a fading generation
of those who remember steam and shovel-noses would sit quietly on our
memories and data without sharing and that the serious historians would
share only by private correspondence . . . .
I wouldn't call it censorship, but it is a limitation which could seriously
hamper the organization/preservation of material which could be lost -
Marshall Thayer
|