I too find the yahoo group workings to my liking. Getting the posts in an
email and replying to the ones that interest me is simplicity itself.
On the topic of nature vs man-made. As a nature recordist I abhor the
inclusion of man-made sounds. I am after as pristine a recording of the
NATURAL world as possible. The INVASSION of man-made sounds into our daily
lives and even in the remotest locations annoys me to no end. Pure nature i=
s
my goal!
Thanks,
Wil Hershberger
Hedgesville, WV
<http://www.natureimagesandsounds.com/> Nature Images and Sounds
<http://www.songsofinsects.com/> The Songs of Insects
<http://cricketman.blogspot.com/> My Blog
_____
From:
On Behalf Of Suzanne Williams
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:59 AM
To:
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Why Yahoo Groups?
My 2 cents. I'd visit the group less if it was not a Yahoo group.
Yahoo group digests come into my email and are way more convenient. If
I choose to reply I need only hit the reply link. Also, I can skip
posts that don't interest me by simply reading what's in the digest at
the top.
RE, your other discussion. I joined this group to hear the
recordings. I have not made any pretense otherwise. I have learned a
lot about the natural environment and recording in the process. I like
pure recordings, minus man-made elements, but I like good recordings
with man-made elements almost just as much. One example was the post
the other day with the recording made in downtown NY. (Sorry I've
forgotten who posted it!) It's the mix of the 2 that interested me.
Just the man made sounds alone would not grab me, but the fact that
living creatures were there as well made it fascinating.
----------------------
Suzanne
Suzanne Williams Photography
http://web.tampabay <http://web.tampabay.rr.com/swilli41/www>
.rr.com/swilli41/www
Florida, USA
--- In naturerecordists@ <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Rory" <> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Yes, I know that one can get a daily digest, just like the last time
that I used an e-mail/listserve group like this, which was in 1996 :)
>
> Hey, I know that I'm being provocative, but honestly, the way that
this forum works strikes me, which as I say may put me in a minority of
one, as years out of date.
>
> Moving to a system that is not ten years out of date would be
painless, free and - buzzword of the decade - user friendly :)
>
> Cheers
>
|