> Yes, I'm totally lost on this back and forth too. > You can go back to the beginning and catch up, but it's really not worth the time.
Creighton > 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 > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
