I personally keep Facebook at as far a distance from myself as possible,
though it happens to be the primary way that several persons and groups in
my orbit use to connect with the rest of the world (which includes me).
That said, my negative vote regarding an ARSC presence there has nothing to
do with my numerous objections to what Facebook is, how it functions and
the many real and/or perceived biases and malfeasances that have been
attributed to it. I simply see that it will fragment the dialog that goes
on here and potentially kill off this list. I have subscribed to certain
other lists literally for decades (starting in the mid-90s) that still
exist, but are no longer vital forums (as in zero postings for months at a
time) since their members have all decided to decamp for Facebook. I don't
realistically imagine that an official (or unofficial) ARSC Facebook will
not come about sooner or later, but I hope that those who connect with it
will take some care to keep this list part of the dialog. Social media is
something that is not going away and I have no problem with anyone who
partakes, but it is good to recognize that a significant and actively
contributing chunk of the ARSC community "prefers not to". I am sure that
the several no votes from frequent posters already appearing are only part
of a larger group who feel likewise but have not chimed in so far.

Cheers,

Peter Hirsch

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Mason Vander Lugt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Is anyone else having the issue Ron is describing? Ron, in the meantime,
> you might try with another browser? We're getting lots of responses, and
> many with comments. I promise the form is not designed to disallow comments
> based on any previous answers. We've noted your votes, and if you have any
> additional comments you can write me or Andrew ([log in to unmask]) or
> continue here. Thanks.
>