Suggestion that this discussion be on the religionlaw list -- Fwd: Conlawprof list multiple delayed posts -- Re: Notre Dame diversion
I serve as moderator for the conlawprof list. Please see the message below, which I sent to that list. I've suggested that this discussion be carried out on this list rather than both simultaneously. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> Date: September 9, 2015 at 8:43:19 AM PDT To: "conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>" <conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Conlawprof list multiple delayed posts -- Re: Notre Dame diversion This morning the conlawprof listserv system notified me that six posts had been held up. The reason is that there were too many addressees. The list software is designed to screen out email blasts. I can't handle that many posts manually, so they will not go through to the conlawprof list membership. When you respond to a post, it's best just to respond to the list, and only to one list. It's usually best, I think, to keep a discussion on one list or the other. I'd like to suggest that the discussion on this subject be carried out on the religionlaw list. Some experts in the field are only members of that list, and most or all of you who are interested in this topic are on that list. (That's just a suggestion.) Best, Mark (conlawprof moderator) Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
A suggestion
I realize that this might be entirely idiosyncratic, but might I suggest that people refer to each other by first name (if you know the person well), or by honorific and last name (such as Ms. X or Prof. Y), rather than simply by last name? I have the tentative sense that such references by last name to fellow participants in a conversation may come across as more brusque than the speaker might have intended. I realize that this isn't always so; among other things, it's not uncommon to so refer to other scholars in articles (Tribe says X, but Dershowitz thinks Y). But my sense is that this sounds different, and a bit harsher, in a conversation. On a conference panel, for instance, I'd probably refer to my fellow panelists either by first name or honorific-plus-last-name; if that is the norm, it might be helpful to follow it also in on-list discussions. At the same time, I stress again that this is offered just as a tentative suggestion. Eugene ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
