At 22:33 11-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: >It might even get you killfiled...... and then what is your point of >view worth? > >Killfiling someone will not stop that person from sharing his points of >view. The only one who loses here is the person who does the >killfiling, because s/he will not see anything written by the killfiled >person, and >thus will also miss any intelligent remarks or questions from that >person. ><<<< > >You are making an error here. Each person has to make a cost-benefit >analysis in choosing to read a message. For example, we have all >decided that reading Brin-L carries more benefit to us than the cost of >not doing something else that we could with our time. If we did not, we >would not be here. > >Now, it is entirely possible to decide that another poster is so unlikely >to post an intelligent remark or question that the probability of this >approaches zero.
So, the probability of me posting an intelligent remark or question approaches zero? If that is true, why has not everyone on this list killfiled me? Why are people still responding to my posts? Why am I still here? If that probability would indeed approach zero, there would be no reason for people *not* to killfile me, there would be no reason for people to reply to my posts, and there would thus be no reason for me to remain on this list. However, most people have not killfiled me, people still reply to my posts, and I am still here. There must be a good reason for all that... Oh, and those four questions two paragraphs above are NOT, I repeat: NOT rhetorical questions. In other words: I expect you (where "you" means "John Giorgis") to come up with an answer to those questions. >Additionally, it is entirely possible to decide that reading certain >four-letter words carries such *disutility* for you, that the cost of this >outweighs the benefits of that posters intelligent remarks and >questions. In either case, you benefit from killfiling the other poster >in question. You are making an error here. If you do not want to read certain four-letter words, you should not filter out the messages from one specific poster, you should filter out the messages that have that specific word in the body of the message. It is after all entirely possible that several posters might use that word. Killfiling one specific poster will not stop those other posters from using that word. Further, your "outweighing the benefits" argument would only be valid if the vast majority of a poster's messages would include that "certain four-letter word". I am confident that this does not apply to my posts. But, if you would specify what four-letter word you mean, I would be more than happy to search the Great Brin-L Archive for messages that I (or any other poster) sent and that contain that specific four-letter word, and then compare that number of posts with my (or that other poster's) total number of posts. >Moreover, by taking the time to write a post, unless writing this has the >value to you that is the equivalent of a diary entry, because you find >some value in sharing this post with other people. Thus, the value to >you of writing that post is decreased by every list-member that chooses to >killfile you and not read your posts. For example, you probably would >spend little time writing posts to a list in which every person has >killfiled you. Thus, each killfile has a small marginal decrease in your >own value of writing posts. Maybe for you, but not for me. As long as there are people who find my posts interesting enough to read them and reply to them, the value to me of writing those posts remains the same. It does not make a difference to me whether there are 1,000 individuals in that group of people, 100 individuals, or just one -- as long as there is someone who finds my posts worth the time and effort of reading (and perhaps replying to) them, the value to me of writing those posts remains the same. Allow me to point out the flaw in your logic. You state that the value of writing a post decreases as the number of people who read that post decreases. Therefore, that value will *increase* when the number of people who read that post increases. It would therefore be beneficial for me to leave Brin-L and join a mailing list that has many more subscribers. But I am still here... That is not to say a decrease in value is impossible, though. However, it is not a gradual decrease, but an instant decrease (like flipping a switch from 'on' to 'off'). That point is reached when the number of people reading my posts is lowered from *one* to *zero*. So, I am not losing anything when someone else decides to killfile me. It is the killfiler who loses, because s/he will miss out on posts that are generally worth reading and may contain intelligent questions and comments (and s/he will also miss out on a lot of humour). The killfiler also loses because s/he will not see it when the killfiled poster asks questions about the killfiler's position on a certain topic, which will make the killfiler look bad because s/he appears to be unwilling to answer critical questions about his/her views. >>Jeroen "His problem, not mine" van Baardwijk Pretty brave words from someone who recently took to the practice of sending certain of his messages to four of my e-mail addresses, in the hopes that I would read one of them. I fail to see how bravery is related to that. Those four messages were cc'd to your other e-mail addresses because (1) they were replies to your posts and (2) contained questions/comments that I expected a reply to. However, since you have me killfiled on Brin-L (which makes it reasonable to assume you do not read those messages), I sent them to your other addresses as well to increase the possibility of you reading those posts, and thus increasing the chance of actually getting a response from you. <Nitpick> BTW, they were sent to *three* of you e-mail addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The primary address I sent them to was the listserver's address, which is definitely *not* your e-mail address. </Nitpick> >Of course, he never considered the possibility that I still occasionally >read his posts, Since you cannot read my mind, it is not possible for you to know whether or not I considered that possibility. I must therefore urge you to refrain from making such statements in the future. Thank you. >but have simply decided that the marginal value to me of responding to him >has pretty much approached zero. That does not exactly benefit your image on this list -- it implies that you refuse to respond to questions/comments about your posts. IOW, it gives the very distinct impression that you want to share your views with people on this list, but do not want to see those views questioned, and do not want to answer questions that might force you to change your mind about the topic at hand. Jeroen "RSVP" van Baardwijk __________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
