[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
proposal to solve the list SNR problem
Tom, Jan, DeLiang,
I propose a solution to this problem, inspired by two-way radio communications:
In two-way radio there is usually a channel for making contact that
everybody listens to. The interested parties only communicate long enough
to determine a new channel where they will continue their conservation.
I propose we use the auditory modeling list to make contact, and then quickly
switch the discussion to another list, designed to support that disucssion.
This will make more effective use of the other special lists, and will leave
the wide-band auditory mailing list open and free.
If you dont know where to move the discussion to, then ask, and post the new
location you agree to. If you comment is short and to the point, then
maybe it is not worth switching. I viewed my comment as this, for example.
However once the conservation starts to build, please move the discussion.
If you agree with the above, please dont respond to this email. The noise level
is high enough already, as DeLiang correctly observed.
Tom Brennan wrote:
> I also wish to disagree. I was a bit dismayed when I first joined this list
> to see the names on the list and then find that when a question was posted
> many of the responses were private. If the responses are to be private, what
> is the point of the list?
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, jan schnupp wrote:
> > I would like to disagree with DeLiang's comment:
> > At 14:14 21/05/01 -0400, DeLiang wrote:
> > >With due respect to knowledgeable respondents to the following inquiry, it
> > >would save us time and effort if replies were sent directly to the inquirer.
> > >If the inquirer later feels that some replies are worth general attention,
> > >he or she can send a digested summary to the entire list.
> > >
> > If DeLiang's proposal had been adhered to, I might have been deprived of
> > Jont Allen's lucid answer to a question which, to me at least, initially
> > sounded naive, but actually turned out to probe quite deeply into important
> > aspects of cochlear function.
> > Why was this particular enquiry singled out? Or is DeLiang suggesting that
> > no replies should ever be posted directly to the whole list? While there
> > may be the occasional flood of auditory list postings and replies of only
> > peripheral interest to some of us, I think it would be a pity to miss out
> > on the occasional gem. Perhaps participants of the list should exercise
> > their judgement and decide whether their reply is likely to interest a fair
> > proportion of the list membership or only a few individuals, and address
> > their postings accordingly. But I do feel quite strongly that anyone who
> > feels they have something worthwhile to contribute should not hesitate to
> > address the list directly.
> > Jan
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr. Jan Schnupp
> > Oxford University, Laboratory of Physiology, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, U.K.
> > Tel (+44-1865) 272 513 Fax (+44-1865) 272 469
> Tom Brennan, CCC-A/SLP, RHD
> web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
> web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/speechscience.html
> web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/fluency.html
Jont B. Allen
AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory, E161
180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971
973/360-8545voice, x7111fax, http://www.research.att.com/~jba