Re: Let's spend some money. Was: Re: LSF method vs. averaging

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

People!

I just read the membership rates and find them quite reasonable.  (I'm a
life subscriber to their two journals, but I don't remember how that
applies to membership.)

I propose that the AAPT study the cost, advisability, etc. of in some
manner "absorbing" PHYS-L and include it, and other lists, as a service
with an appropriate increase in membership dues.

Not incidentally, would membership requirement for posting mitigate
virus danger?

bc

p.s. It would be appropriate, of course, for Dan to continue managing.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 10, 2004, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
>
>
> > I repeat:  Can we contribute $ for a system that doesn't
> > have such problems? [deforming text, not allowing
> > for attached files (with pictures) etc.]
> > bc, willing to pay for membership.
>
> I think that to answer this question
> one has to know the cost. Is it going
> to be $10 or $100 per year? I suspect
> that many would say yes for 10 and
> not too many for 100.
>
> Another possibility is to find somebody
> who would not mind providing this for
> free (pro publico bono?). I am sure Dan
> (the owner of this list) would not reject
> the offer. The most natural server would
> be the one used by AAPT; most of us
> already pay to belong.
> Ludwik Kowalski
>
>
>
> > > May I suggest that you repost
> > > the message making lines
> > > shorter than you did. What
> > > I see has confusing = in wrong
> > > places and =20. For example,
> > >
> > > we used s=imply (max-min)/2.=20
> > >
> > > This discourages some people from
> > > reading and guessing what to ignore.
> > >
> > > It is a pity that our server does it to
> > > many messages. That is why my
> > > lines are usually very short.