Re: comments about chatter

[Guest guest]

Folks,

I sent this comment to Francesca because I was afraid that limiting

list discussion strictly to calorie restriction with optimum nutrition

would eliminate comments by list members on health and nutrition

matters-- such as exercise and anti-inflammatory foods-- that weren't

strictly on-topic. Bernadette also pointed out a good example -

members' personal experiences.

When I first joined the list, I experienced email overload from all

the back-and-forth conversations that typically go on. I solved the

problem by changing my preferences so that I have to go to the

CRSupportgroup website to read the messages. My involvement with the

list actually increased after I did this because I now pick and choose

which posts I want to read and skip over topics that hold no interest

for me - like the lycopene discussion a couple of weeks ago that

lasted about 3 days. It made the list more interesting for me.

How do the rest of you readers feel about this chatter? Like

Francesca, do most of the rest of you feel deluged with too much

superfluous email from this list?

Diane

>

> Hi Francesca,

>

> I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

>

> First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> generated on the list..........................

>

>

> You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that we

> should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

really

> liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter and I

> suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

become

> friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> conversations.

[Guest guest]

Folks,

I sent this comment to Francesca because I was afraid that limiting

list discussion strictly to calorie restriction with optimum nutrition

would eliminate comments by list members on health and nutrition

matters-- such as exercise and anti-inflammatory foods-- that weren't

strictly on-topic. Bernadette also pointed out a good example -

members' personal experiences.

When I first joined the list, I experienced email overload from all

the back-and-forth conversations that typically go on. I solved the

problem by changing my preferences so that I have to go to the

CRSupportgroup website to read the messages. My involvement with the

list actually increased after I did this because I now pick and choose

which posts I want to read and skip over topics that hold no interest

for me - like the lycopene discussion a couple of weeks ago that

lasted about 3 days. It made the list more interesting for me.

How do the rest of you readers feel about this chatter? Like

Francesca, do most of the rest of you feel deluged with too much

superfluous email from this list?

Diane

>

> Hi Francesca,

>

> I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

>

> First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> generated on the list..........................

>

>

> You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that we

> should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

really

> liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter and I

> suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

become

> friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> conversations.

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane:

I sent my comments on this to Francesca off-list. But to answer your

specific question .......... I do not feel swamped with excess

chatter. But that may be because I am selective about what I read.

I read every headline, and if there is a study I read the title and

the conclusion and decide whether the rest might be truly relevant to

me. If not I skip it. But even if I don't read the full post I am

glad it is there because there are some studies posted that I find

very very helpful. And very likely, what each of us finds very very

helpful will vary from person to person.

For example, going back in the archives I have found things I had

ignored at the time they had been posted because at the time I didn't

know enough to realize their significance. I was still working on

trying to get straight the basic fundamentals of CRON. Now I am up

the scale a little from where I was, so the basic details are no

longer something I feel I need to read about. But much still goes

right over the top of my head, and always will I think.

On the other hand I am familiar with other (non-health) websites with

no moderation at all, or quite liberal moderation. At one moderated

site the past few days the discussion has been dominated by three or

four people who insist in inflicting their views on the others about

what is going on in New Orleans. Much of the content being

aggressively political, and absolutely none of it having relevance to

the site's purpose. But the moderator permits it. Presumably in the

interests of maintaining a community atmosphere?

So the question is " where is the best balance? " Darned if I know.

But bear in mind the following. This is a pretty successful site for

a pretty obscure (unpopular, perhaps only one person in every 75,000

of population are doing CRON) topic. By comparison take a look at

the Okinawa Project website. Last time I was there I posted a

question and then noticed that the previous post had been made three

months previously. A couple of weeks later someone emailed me an

answer.

Since the purposes of the Okinawa Program site are quite similar to

this one, this suggests that there is something intrinsically better

about this site. My bet is that, as with successful corporations,

the key ingredient for a successful website is the way it is

managed. So I am happy to go along with whatever it is the

management here decides is best for the site, since they seem to have

been doing a pretty decent job this far.

It seems to me that the environment/format we have had here up to now

must be pretty good or the most recent message would have been posted

three months ago, and no one would have noticed it for three weeks!

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi Francesca,

> >

> > I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> > everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

> >

> > First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> > generated on the list..........................

> >

> >

> > You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that

we

> > should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

> really

> > liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> > comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter

and I

> > suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> > than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

> become

> > friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> > conversations.

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane:

I sent my comments on this to Francesca off-list. But to answer your

specific question .......... I do not feel swamped with excess

chatter. But that may be because I am selective about what I read.

I read every headline, and if there is a study I read the title and

the conclusion and decide whether the rest might be truly relevant to

me. If not I skip it. But even if I don't read the full post I am

glad it is there because there are some studies posted that I find

very very helpful. And very likely, what each of us finds very very

helpful will vary from person to person.

For example, going back in the archives I have found things I had

ignored at the time they had been posted because at the time I didn't

know enough to realize their significance. I was still working on

trying to get straight the basic fundamentals of CRON. Now I am up

the scale a little from where I was, so the basic details are no

longer something I feel I need to read about. But much still goes

right over the top of my head, and always will I think.

On the other hand I am familiar with other (non-health) websites with

no moderation at all, or quite liberal moderation. At one moderated

site the past few days the discussion has been dominated by three or

four people who insist in inflicting their views on the others about

what is going on in New Orleans. Much of the content being

aggressively political, and absolutely none of it having relevance to

the site's purpose. But the moderator permits it. Presumably in the

interests of maintaining a community atmosphere?

So the question is " where is the best balance? " Darned if I know.

But bear in mind the following. This is a pretty successful site for

a pretty obscure (unpopular, perhaps only one person in every 75,000

of population are doing CRON) topic. By comparison take a look at

the Okinawa Project website. Last time I was there I posted a

question and then noticed that the previous post had been made three

months previously. A couple of weeks later someone emailed me an

answer.

Since the purposes of the Okinawa Program site are quite similar to

this one, this suggests that there is something intrinsically better

about this site. My bet is that, as with successful corporations,

the key ingredient for a successful website is the way it is

managed. So I am happy to go along with whatever it is the

management here decides is best for the site, since they seem to have

been doing a pretty decent job this far.

It seems to me that the environment/format we have had here up to now

must be pretty good or the most recent message would have been posted

three months ago, and no one would have noticed it for three weeks!

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi Francesca,

> >

> > I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> > everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

> >

> > First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> > generated on the list..........................

> >

> >

> > You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that

we

> > should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

> really

> > liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> > comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter

and I

> > suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> > than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

> become

> > friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> > conversations.

[Guest guest]

According to information theory, the most valuable information is the

one that has the smallest chance of happening. Some discussions that

may only be peripheral to CR and ON can have great impact on how we

approach our diets or give us a completely different perspective on

the subject.

It is important for the group to keep the emphasis on substantiating

statements with peer-reviewed publication data so that we can learn

from proven strategies (at least for mice). This also keeps the blind

from leading the blind and establishes a protocol for avoiding

mistakes that can be injurious to the health of the readers of this

group. Analysis of published papers can also serve to arbitrate

disagreements about various concepts without stooping to personality

clashes that seldom resolve the issues.

The fact that the participants are willing to share their approaches

to CR along with the good experiences and the bad experiences provides

a wealth of information about the practice of CR from which we can all

benefit.

By the way, I am in the process of tweaking and testing a " Caloric

Restriction Calculator " for my web site:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

It is based on the ideas that I discussed earlier this year about

using the -Benedict equation for creating a theoretical " control

twin " .

Tony

> > >

> > > Hi Francesca,

> > >

> > > I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> > > everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

> > >

> > > First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> > > generated on the list..........................

> > >

> > >

> > > You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that

> we

> > > should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

> > really

> > > liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> > > comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter

> and I

> > > suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> > > than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

> > become

> > > friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> > > conversations.

[Guest guest]

According to information theory, the most valuable information is the

one that has the smallest chance of happening. Some discussions that

may only be peripheral to CR and ON can have great impact on how we

approach our diets or give us a completely different perspective on

the subject.

It is important for the group to keep the emphasis on substantiating

statements with peer-reviewed publication data so that we can learn

from proven strategies (at least for mice). This also keeps the blind

from leading the blind and establishes a protocol for avoiding

mistakes that can be injurious to the health of the readers of this

group. Analysis of published papers can also serve to arbitrate

disagreements about various concepts without stooping to personality

clashes that seldom resolve the issues.

The fact that the participants are willing to share their approaches

to CR along with the good experiences and the bad experiences provides

a wealth of information about the practice of CR from which we can all

benefit.

By the way, I am in the process of tweaking and testing a " Caloric

Restriction Calculator " for my web site:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

It is based on the ideas that I discussed earlier this year about

using the -Benedict equation for creating a theoretical " control

twin " .

Tony

> > >

> > > Hi Francesca,

> > >

> > > I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

> > > everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

> > >

> > > First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

> > > generated on the list..........................

> > >

> > >

> > > You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that

> we

> > > should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I

> > really

> > > liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

> > > comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter

> and I

> > > suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

> > > than sticking rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've

> > become

> > > friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

> > > conversations.

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all who commented.

I received a couple of comments off list who agreed with my proposal.

The fact is that as we grow, so do we get people who join just to push their agenda (excessive exercise for example, or even anorexia) or those who just enjoy seeing their posts on the board. Or those who like to " chat " without much substance. We get those whose aim is to detract from our goals. It's a sad fact of life that not everyone joins for ideal reasons.

The moderators are more aware of these types than the rest of the members, since we often weed them out and prevent future problems.

Once again ask yourself the question: " Would MOST of the 1800 members be interested in my comment? " If not, please refrain from posting it, or at least ask one of the moderators if you're not sure.

Occasionally straying off topic etc. is OK, but excessive non-content posts will put the offender on " moderate " . In extreme cases the offender will be banned.

We have to have some rules here or things will degenerate.

on 9/2/2005 4:45 AM, chris at ucla_mishka@... wrote:

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

Folks: I got this e-mail off list from one of our valued members.

Perhaps I'm in the minority on this so I'd like to open the floor to discuss

it. Or perhaps we should take a poll?

Someone wrote:

Hi Francesca,

I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

generated on the list..........................

You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that we

should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I really

liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter and I

suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

than sticki! ng rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've become

friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

conversations.

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all who commented.

I received a couple of comments off list who agreed with my proposal.

The fact is that as we grow, so do we get people who join just to push their agenda (excessive exercise for example, or even anorexia) or those who just enjoy seeing their posts on the board. Or those who like to " chat " without much substance. We get those whose aim is to detract from our goals. It's a sad fact of life that not everyone joins for ideal reasons.

The moderators are more aware of these types than the rest of the members, since we often weed them out and prevent future problems.

Once again ask yourself the question: " Would MOST of the 1800 members be interested in my comment? " If not, please refrain from posting it, or at least ask one of the moderators if you're not sure.

Occasionally straying off topic etc. is OK, but excessive non-content posts will put the offender on " moderate " . In extreme cases the offender will be banned.

We have to have some rules here or things will degenerate.

on 9/2/2005 4:45 AM, chris at ucla_mishka@... wrote:

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

Folks: I got this e-mail off list from one of our valued members.

Perhaps I'm in the minority on this so I'd like to open the floor to discuss

it. Or perhaps we should take a poll?

Someone wrote:

Hi Francesca,

I wanted to give my 2 cents worth about your email to and

everyone else on the list about superfluous comments.

First, I wanted to agree with you that there is a lot of mail

generated on the list..........................

You yourself have posted emails about how life is short and that we

should enjoy it to the fullest. I appreciate those insights. I really

liked your thank-you post to Tony this morning for his pertinent

comments on Al's anorexia. In short, I *like* all the chatter and I

suspect others do, too. The deluge can be remedied by means other

than sticki! ng rigidly to topic. This is a community and we've become

friends who sometimes wander off-topic. I'd hate to miss those

conversations.

[Guest guest]

I read very few groups now, because of lack of control. Control means spending a lot of time managing the members status. I left all the newsgroups because of the open, non-sensical forum. Occasionally, I go back to get info, and it's just not there.

Even new egroups, suffer from lack of the right participation.

If we're here to discuss how to do CR, fine. If it's to sell a personal idea of perfection, maybe not so.

I think, new information is necessary if it's informative. It has to come from a valid (believable) source. I'd call that: first, text books; second, Medline refs; third practicising doctors and research scientists in the field. (just my first guess)

There are online sources like mdconsult.com, which limit the amount of "chaff" a person has to read. Sometimes, I submit to using search and find a million hits, then I select the .gov's, .edu's, and medical institutions.

So this site serves to limit the chaff one has to read, however fanciful.

AND not to review every silly .com out there, eg, or extend their ideas.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

I read very few groups now, because of lack of control. Control means spending a lot of time managing the members status. I left all the newsgroups because of the open, non-sensical forum. Occasionally, I go back to get info, and it's just not there.

Even new egroups, suffer from lack of the right participation.

If we're here to discuss how to do CR, fine. If it's to sell a personal idea of perfection, maybe not so.

I think, new information is necessary if it's informative. It has to come from a valid (believable) source. I'd call that: first, text books; second, Medline refs; third practicising doctors and research scientists in the field. (just my first guess)

There are online sources like mdconsult.com, which limit the amount of "chaff" a person has to read. Sometimes, I submit to using search and find a million hits, then I select the .gov's, .edu's, and medical institutions.

So this site serves to limit the chaff one has to read, however fanciful.

AND not to review every silly .com out there, eg, or extend their ideas.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

As a chatterer myself, I, of course, favor chatter in moderation.

Maco

[Guest guest]

As a chatterer myself, I, of course, favor chatter in moderation.

Maco