|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:18:10 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: CMARINHO@ccvax.unicamp.br
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hello pacslistees,
Time to baby-step out of silent majority: I've been "hearing
your voices" for some time now (3-4 months) and I'm happy to
confirm my intuition to subscribe PACS-L as a first-travel
"sailor". You're one of the most responsive, self-organized
and "tuned" listpeople I've seen from then on.
The problem is, to be short, that the effort (it's amazing the
amount of time Internet proficiency requires, not to say being
leisure-time proficient helping others) you all have been
doing is NOT being paired by end-user full-text
producers'/depositors' work on the net. To put it another way,
you seem to be all tied up in a kind of "macluhanian --
anybody remember him? -- trap": the more you elaborate the
medium (it's is the message!), the more we get "thirsty" for
info and frustrated for not getting access to it -- I mean
*real* end-user information for action ("where is the
information we have lost in data?", Inose/Pierce, "Information
Technology and Civilization").
Now, get on my side to take a look from here. I'm a Third
World researcher in development economics doing my doctoral
dissertation work in Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. I am a
net.enthusiastic.guy (isn't great logging into CARL/Uncover
through my old PC at home and getting to my nextdoor
university library in the morning to pick the most recent
article by X on Y?) but I feel badly when I see some
references to working papers that are electronic texts for
sure and are not on the net. Could we imagine the two-way road
for research discussions if that would be the general case,
not the exception? I don't mean we should all be skywriting in
nearly-real time about our problems and points of view, but we
could at least be FTPing a lot more of our semi-elaborated
ideas on specific matters ("try info end-user discussion
lists" -- yes, I tried lots of them and, at least in my
subject area, they're poor enough is their discussions, when
they exist at all, to encourage me to provoke you, throughput
people).
Does that make any sense? If it does, what could we devise so
as to put together end-user and throughput people? If it
doesn't deserve a collective discussion by active pacslistees,
I would really appreciate receiving any individual postings by
those interested in a one-to-one conversation.
Thanks
Claudio Marinho
IE/Unicamp
Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil
cmarinho@bruc.bitnet
cmarinho@ccvax.unicamp.br
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |