View single post by PvtClewell
 Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 01:33 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Awww, Ole — I'm a pot stirrer from way back (uh-oh. Maybe I ought to rephrase that).

I'm just trying to generate some discussion here. The name-that-war debate popped up in a 9-page essay in North and South Magazine a few issues ago and I thought it would make some good fun here.

I noticed as I write this, this thread has had 44 views but only six responses. What, nobody else has an opinion on this? I also noticed the board has nearly 500 members, some international, which seems like a huge body of interest, expertise and perspective to me. And yet, we have about 15-20 'regulars' of that 500 who actually contribute to the discussion. Even the hill and Ewell threads, which I thought presented some magnificent and inspired discussion, basically came from the same handful of folks. How much better could those threads have been with another 20 or more different contributors?

I'm a newbie here and I'm not complaining, mind you. Just wondering what it takes to get more responders. Cattle prods? Bribes? Free trips to Gettysburg? It ain't that hard to log in and express a thought.

To me, 500 members means we should have a pool of 500 different perspectives on a topic. I know each individual has certain areas of interest and we all won't respond to every thread, (i.e., when discussion turns to the war in the west, I'm lost) but we should be able to jack the number of contributors up a notch. How do we do that on the Internet?

I'll get off my soapbox now before that guy who's bigger than me gets here.

Last edited on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 01:19 pm by PvtClewell

 Close Window