agreed. so, who won the game last night?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
