There are many lists that function as support forums for individuals with shared inclinations or characteristics, rather than as a shared focus of interest in substantive academically oriented subject matters. Although such groups may not exchange communications that would be classified by many as `learned' or `academic', they are extremely relevant to social scientists who are interested in isues relating to the dispositions, interests or charactersitics of members of such groups. They are also a rich source of `research' and `information' leads relating to individuals who do not appear on any lists that can be used for sampling purposes, and where the compilation of such lists can be expensive in both time and resources. The TRNSPLNT@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU is a discussion list for those who have received transplanted organs, and others interested in the experiences of individuals who have undergone these procedures. As it is possible to obtain a listing of subscribers, and an index of archived exchanges (see previous document in this series), this is a rich source of information for anyone interested in the experiences of those who have had organ transplants, or those interested in conducting research into such matters. At the very least there are bound to be some members of such a grouping who can provide leads to other sources of information and individuals. There are literally hundreds of equivalent discussion lists, relating to medical dysfunctions, sexual dispositions, political identities, leisure pursuits, etc. And what has been said in connection with the latter groupings, applies equally to academic mailing lists.. These can constitute the subject matter of research as readily as any other grouping. All are potentially rich sources of varied categories of information for the social scientist.

Needless to say, on some mailing lists you are likely to find that the quality of exchanges, or breadth of coverage does not meet your requirements or expectations. One solution to this is to make contributions of your own which match these and hope that others will follow suit. It is somewhat pointless to complain about the shallowness of the level of debate if you are not willing to make contributions of your own that will help to rectify some of the deficencies which you have identified. Too hasty a judgment should be avoided. Look at some of the archived material before concluding after a week or two that the list is characterised by a shallow and pernicious exchange of views. You may simply have joined at a time during which the exchanges were particularly heated, or atypical of the normal run of communications.

On some lists the exchanges do get very heated. One of the lists that I used to subsscribe to was REVS (Race and Ethnic Violence Studies). In October 1995 there were heated exchanges relating to the O J Simpson trial. A contributor suggested that Nichole Brown Simpson's behaviour could be attributed to her connections with criminal elements. The heated exchanges that ensued, arose less because of this suggestion, than from the use of a common "anti-woman (sexist) insult to describe" Nicole Brown. Initially, an apology was sought from the contributor, but this was not forthcoming. Some subscribers decided to unsubscribe. Personal insults were directed at some of those entering the fray. As the list owner, Alan Spector, was going away for a conference for four days, he postponed the posting of messages from the contributor whose initial communication had initiated this particular spat. This only seemed to fuel further controversy. The list-owner explained his actions by noting that the list should not tolerate sexist remarks any more than it should tolerate "a neo-Nazi posting a message calling all Jews sub-human or a white racist hurling traditional anti-black insults". Moreover, he continued, such exchanges laid him, as list owner, open to potential libel suits. The controversy was calmed by his decision to split the list in two. One part would be moderated; all messages sent to the list would be scrutinised by moderators. Any which were particularly offensive, would not be posted to the moderated list. The second, now known as REVS-cafe, was to be unmoderated. All messages received by the list would be posted there. Individuals who subscribed to REVS-cafe would automatically receive all communications. Those who subscribed to REVS would receive only moderated communications. A neat solution: censorship, inasmuch as it is involved, would be self-imposed. Another list that I subscribed to, PSN (Progressive Sociologists Network) has gone down a similar road, although for different reasons; in this case because many subscribers were deserting the list because of the volume of material, or, in some instances, because the postings were found to be uniniteresting.

No social scientist, staff or student, should have difficulty in locating lists that deal with subjects germane to their interests. The Internet is an open network. It still flourishes principally because individuals are prepared to make contributions out of a sense of assisting in the fashioning of some overall good, or in exchange for potential benefits in terms of publicity, increase in market share, etc. If you have information, or a point of view that is relevant to exchanges on a particular list that you are subscribed to, you should consider communicating this to others. In doing so, however, you should consider the following:

When writing to a list try and ensure that the subject heading you are using in the message header reflects as accurately as possible the content. It is, of course, marginally easier to reply to a message, as you do not have to fill in the header information, rather than devise a new subject heading that more accurately reflects the content of your own message. Deleting a line, however, does not take much time. Subject headings are important guides that enable the recipients of messages to decide the significance to them of reading the message. For those searching through archived materials, it is an equally important pointer.

Make sure that your message is being sent to the correct address. To the list if meant for all subscribers. To the Listserv if it is concerned with list administrative matters. Ensure that you have completed the subject heading. Try not to inadvertantly click on the send button before you have finished composing the message. It is not possible to retrieve it once sent, and all subscribers will receive an incomplete letter, followed, in all probability, by the completed message a few minutes later, along with an apology.

Before contributing to discussions observe the nature of the exchanges taking place for a while in order to gauge what is expected of contributors on particular lists. Many lists have an associated USENET group (see the document on USENET Newsgroups), and there may be a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document that includes valuable information about the list and its subscribers. If there is, you should consider consulting it.

Try and keep your messages to the point. I have noted repeatedly that some lists generate a large number of communications. It is important, therefore, to keep your messages as concise as possible if you want other subscribers, who are probably as pushed for time as you are, to read, absorb, and respond to them. If you intend dealing with a range of issues, consider sending a number of short messages instead of a lengthy and complicated communication. Always take into consideation the attention span of your potential readers.

Keep the formatting as simple as possible. A message with an endless number of italicised, emboldened, underlined, and capitalized words and sentences, when this is not necessary, is tiring on the eyes, and is found to be irritating by many potential readers. For reasons which I have yet to understand, there is a small band of stalwarts who prefer to send lengthy messages in capital letters. These are extremely difficult to read, irritate many readers, and, consequently, frequently remain unread.

Another category of contribution that I think it is well worth avoiding takes the form: "Hello everyone. I have just joined the list and I thought that I would introduce myself to everyone. I am a student (staff member at)...." If you cannot resist the temptation, make sure that the subject header is entitled Introduction. That way, the rest of us suffering souls can delete it. Far better to wait until such time as you can introduce yourself in the context of posting a contribution to the ongoing subject matter of the list.

You should try and avoid, under all circumstances, getting involved in a pointless exchange of invectives. It is unlikely that going down this route will gain any converts, and it is more or less guaranteed to arouse the hostility of others. Unless you can pour oil on heated controversies, it is far better to sit them out. Equally, if you encounter the message `how do I subscribe to the list', restrain yourself. There is no point sending a communication to the list displaying your proficiency in identifying synonyms of imbecile. As the transgressor is not subscribed, he cannot read your response. If you have that much energy send a helpful email detailing how to subscribe to the list.