Yes, I'm totally lost on this back and forth too. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Nini last name < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait...what are we talking about? > > > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:25:45 -0500 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Liberating the FC list > > > > > > Creighton Samuels wrote: > > >> I think you have missed my point. It is a choice that the list > > >> membership *can* make, individually, without affecting the list > > >> membership in any other fashion. If *he* annoys you, killfile him and > > >> he will cease to exist for you. If he annoys everyone, he will cease > to > > >> exist entirely. No rules, committees, or offensive actions required. > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > > > I think that I'm still being misunderstood... > > > > > > > I hope that people have been doing what you suggest thus far with > people > > > they don't want to read. I assume that is how most mailing lists are > > > read. Read what you want, don't read what you don't want. > > > > > > I think some people felt they weren't able to be effective members of > > > the mailing list by not reading entire weeks of email (which is what > > > would happen if people killfiled certain topics). > > > > > > > I'm not talking about actively filtering groups of posts by subject > > header, every email client has a file for which any post that arrives > from > > an email address listed is automaticly deleted, no operator input > > required. Every email list I have ever been on (I average about 250-300 > > emails received daily) forwards the sender's address, in part, for proper > > killfile operation. Any post from a disruptive individual listed in the > > killfile will never be seen in any fashion by the reader, regardless of > > topic. > > > > > So yeah, I agree that ideally people should just ignore what they don't > > > want to read. But, I also see how some people feel it has gotten out of > > > hand (certain discussions at least). > > > > > > Anyways, I think we agree in principle, I just might be more willing to > > > have groups set group specific guidelines. It is a trade-off though, > > > certainly. And I don't profess know how to handle the situation in the > > > *best* fashion. > > > > > > > > > I think we are not far off, and I'm not opposed to "guidelines" in any > > case, provided that they are not rigid. It's just the part about > > "enforcement" of guidelines that I am warning against. Personally, it's > > not likely to affect me either way, as generally I'm a passive lurker > > anyway. > > > > Creighton > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ------------------------------ > Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime > you're > online.<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
