<html> <head> <style></style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> David,   It's kind of like a roller coaster--I get various messages in all kinds of wierd places.  I can say that it is suprising to sit down to read about hearing aids and suddenly find a CAUT message on my hearing aid email!   As long as no one says anything that they consider REALLY important for the next while--it might get sent to some Nigerian Banker!.......  and the rest of us might never find out. Diane Diane Hofstetter   > From: davidlovepianos@comcast.net > To: caut@ptg.org > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:03:51 -0800 > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Two CAUT lists > > I don't really get how this is working at all. I get some posts like this > one that are simply email and then I get others that are formatted to the > my.ptg.org format. Are these email posts eventually going the way of the > buffalo? The other format seems fine in some ways especially because > everything is trimmed to include only the poster's reply. However, it > appears you then need to go back into the thread to see exactly what they > are responding to which can be unclear. > > David Love > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred > Sturm > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 4:07 PM > To: caut@ptg.org > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Two CAUT lists > > The new format definitely has its pluses and minuses. The biggest > minus so far is slow server response, many instances (very high > proportion) of "waiting for my.ptg" or "processing," sometimes with no > result at all until I stop by hitting escape and re-send. Then, often > but no always, whatever it was happens instantly. So there are bugs. > And like any system of this sort, it takes a while to get used to the > navigation, which is often frustrating (no easy path to where you want > to go, or too many steps). > But mostly I am tending to look at the pluses. One of the biggest is > > the ability to create new specialized discussion groups, which can > have libraries (files can be uploaded and are searchable) and which > will have archives. I have created three: voicing, harpsichord, and > piano history. I'm sure there will be more, and I may create more > myself. It is pretty easy: click on "add a discussion" in a couple of > places where that option appears. Then you need to give it a title, a > description, and configure it as to who can read or post, whether it > has a library. I am afraid I didn't pay enough attention to that step > for voicing and harpsichord, and I believe I set them so that only PTG > members may post, rather than that "authenticated" (ie, anyone who > sets up a profile) may post. And I see no way to edit those options > once the group has been formed (I am sure an administrator can do it, > and have made that request). So I give that caution: pay attention to > those details. BTW, private groups can be created as well. > I think this is an excellent step in a good direction. It will not > be > necessary to subscribe to one or two rather general lists to take > advantage of shared knowledge and experience. Instead, we can > subscribe only to those topics that interest us most, view any other > topic in its archives or search them. We can upload files of various > sorts, which will then be available in a library, searchable (assuming > we give good file names and descriptions). All of this means less of > the "noise" involved in doing all these things on an ephemeral list. A > down side may be less immediate social interaction with friends and > colleagues, but those opportunities will exist as well, through > various contacts and blogs and whatnot. > > > Regards, > Fred Sturm > fssturm@unm.edu > "Since everything is in our heads, we had better not lose them." Coco > Chanel > </body> </html>