LAW-LIB: hybrid listserv proposal

LAW-LIB is a listserv where law librarians ask and answer legal questions and help each other find legal resources and trouble shoot unique legal reference questions. Currently the list administrator has raised the issue of whether a specific person should be banned from the list and great debate has ensued. What is problematic is that when a debate on a listserv happens it happens in your inbox. A typically amount of emails from LAW-LIB might be 6-12 in a day. The current debate has thrown this number into the range of 50-75 emails. I wanted to raise a listserv idea that could be debated on a forum that is more conducive to discussion. The power of listservs is that they have a very strong connection with people because the email goes directly to them. The listserv participants are dealing with a "push" information system. My idea is to have a listserv that operates something like the game show Jeopardy in that things would have to be in the form of a question. The listserv would only be for questions. All answers to questions and discussion would be on a corresponding website. Each question sent to the mailing list would automatically be posted to the website. If you wanted to see the answer to a question or provide an answer you would go to the the website. One of the most powerful thing about LAW-LIB is that many of the participants are law firm librarians that have unique access to information. These librarians are sensitive, and I think rightly so, to cluttered inboxes. LAW-LIB provides a direct connection with these valuable librarians and I think the proposal of a hybrid listserv/website would keep the advantages of a listserv while providing a forum for discussion that would be beneficial to all listserv users. I would be interested to have a discussion of this idea on LISNEWS.


Yeah, but at least he did his own Googling and other research.

Wow, how does it feel to be annoying on two different lists?

See point 4 at

The number required for a representative sample was 346.

The number surveyed was 301.

Even if the concept of "close" has any meaning in this context, (and I cannot find ANY support for the view that it does) that is simply NOT "close" at all.

It is 13.006% BELOW the requisite number.

I regret the fact that you find my annoying. I am in no way trying to annoy anyone.

I am simply trying to get some TRUTH told and accepted about the "Mickey Mouse" survey results.

No more and no less.

The link doesn't work.

That is for a confidence level of 5. That seems a bit wide for me. I would think 3 would be more appropriate at 3 with a confidence level of 95. That would require ~800

You people all look like idiots to me because you are arguing about statistics and you don't have any idea what you are talking about. If the sum total of your argument involves searching for an online calculator to calculate sample size you are clowns.

The person that owns the list is not going to kick him off, move on already. Geez if you people need something to do I have an attic that needs cleaning.

Might I suggest a nice big glass of STFU, you are even annoying the annoying people here.

Speaking of clowns the discussion on this thread has been dead for the last eight hours till you came along and went talky talky.

Sorry I work for a living. Someone has to pay all those taxes that the government is giving away.

Nice of you to point out that you have no life and sit in front of the computer all day, too bad you don't have the guts to use your name and insist on hiding behind the cloak of anonynimnity.

You come on and drop a STFU without even looking when the last message was posted. You don't have to sit in front of your computer all day to know when the last message was posted you can also read the information. Amazing thing that reading.

Speaking of no life you post on here constantly. So when you are not working you seem to be here. So before you call the kettle black you might want to look in the mirror.

I post at different times of the day, and often at night (I do have the occasional 3am conference call with India or the UK.)

However if anyone posts constantly it is you Anonymous.

You want it you got it - STFU.

You're just whinging because I called you out on the statistics above and made you look like an idiot talking out of his arse.

Oh, and by the way Mr. Math Wizard, 1:24PM was the post previous to mine. If you noticed you can change your comment viewing options to sort the chronologically.

Nice of you to make yourself look like a clown again. Marsey doats you simpleton.

You were responding to the marzy doats post?? Oh, brother I didnt even look at the time on that one because it was a nonsense post.

You crap about the statistics didnt phase me at all. I didnt even read all your drivel about the stats. I plugged in the numbers in a calc and got a good estimate that a poll of 300 people gave a reasonable feel for a group of 3500. I do have a life so I wasnt going to waste more than 5 minutes with an online calc. For the love of god look at the big spiel you typed up about it, which I still havent read. WTF was all that?

STFU right back out you. Were both clowns Mdoniel. Anyone engaging in an internet argument is a clown. That is why I am anonymous. You like to put your clowness with your name. More power to ya.

So now your comment that " I am not going to walk you through the formula" has turned into I plugged the numbers into a caluclator I thought would give me the correct answer, but since I have no idea what I am talking about it will make me look smart on the interwebs.

Unfortunately those of us who do have a clue, and have enough guts to put our own names on what we say think you are nothing but an internet tough guy.

I bet you are a big hit on law-lib.

The "I am not going to walk you through the formula" was saying that I was not going to also go out and get the formula for him and work it all out. Talking about trying to look smart on the intrawebs you always come along with your I am a nurse, ninja, firefighter, librarians spiel that is nothing but "look at me" "look at me"

And you have the guts to post under your real name? What is it? Ron Huttner is Ron Huttner. Are you mdoniel? In a previous post you said your phone number was in the book in response to Ron giving his. Give your full name and number like Ron did. Mdoniel is no different than posting under Mickey Mouse or anonymous.


You can figure out what city I live in from other posts on LISNews. Feel free to call.

marzy doats is less nonsensical than all of mdoneils posts. there are too many bozos in his brain bus.

Is this you?

If it is you say: I play keyboards, guitars, saxophone, clarinet, flute, guitar, trumpet and darbuka. I love World Music particularly, though any kind of music at all that is well played and well performed appeals to me. I have well over 2000 CDs, covering every conceivable genre from the most avant-garde jazz right through to opera. I suppose that jazz is my very favourite genre, as I both listen to it a great deal and play it ! Some of my favourite jazz artists are Rahsaan Roland Kirk, John Coltrane, Ben Webster, Gerry Mulligan, Michel Petrucciani, John Surman, Oscar Peterson, Gonzalo Rubalcaba, Dave Brubeck, Herbie Mann, George Melly, Diana Krall, Jane Monheit and Norah Jones.

Someone with these varied interest shouldn't be hanging out on LAW-LIB.

You are retired in Australia. You should be kicking back listening to jazz and lawn bowling not putting up with our crap.

Of course it's me. Who else ? And you are 100% correct. I should NOT have been hanging out on Law-Lib for so many years after I retired in mid-2003. But unlike many, I actually ENJOY helping people. I did it because (a) I liked it, (b) I was jolly good at it and (c) I wanted to keep my mind and my legal skills alert even after retirement. For MANY years I had an excellent website for lawyers known as "VidElex - See The Law". It used to get many thousands of hits every single day from all over the world. It was totally free. I never made one solitary cent out of it. I had NO "backer" and paid out of my own pocket to run it. Eventually, after a heart attack in 2000, I had no choice but to take it down because it was COSTING me a lot of money to maintain it. WHY did I do it for so long ? Because I was able to and got enormous satisfaction knowing just how many legal researchers found it extremely useful. But I now agree. Both Law-Lib and this List are places where some very nasty characters indeed hang out. And the crap on both Lists is, indeed now awful and intolerable. It's very sad. So I am playing bowls far more these days, and practising my trumpet with determination every single day. What's more, both my bowls and my trumpet playing have improved out of sight.

Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
(Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher

I'm disappointed with LIS news.

Even if Mr. Huttner is a supreme jerk, I fail to see the reasoning behind us publicly bashing him here. There are plenty of people on listservs that I don't like, but I prefer to spend my time in more productive ways, rather than flaming somebody. Furthermore, attention just feeds a troll.

I am politically the opposite of mdoneil, but I like reading his posts because they're so thoughtful. Everyone gets peeved at him too.

Are we bored with bashing mdoneil? So now we need another target?

Bashing? What?

Read the comments!!! No one says anything about Huttner till he pops in here and announces himself. Mickey Mouse took a jab or two, everyone else is responding to something he said.

Plus this is a classic Internet situation anyway. The flames were dying down until you pop in with your high and mighty comment that you are oh so disappointed. If as you say "attention just feeds a troll." Why is the love of all that is right would you post any kind of response?

If you understand this post you will not try to respond to it at all.

Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you-oo?


Subscribe to Comments for "LAW-LIB: hybrid listserv proposal "