List, Edwina, Jon, Ben, Edwina wrote:
ET: I presume JAS is complaining about the fact that I reply promptly. He has complained about this before. GR: Your presumption is entirely incorrect. I have had no off-List communication with JAS for many months. As some who have followed this List closely may recall, he and I had a serious, personal falling out regarding religion which resulted in a cessation of our off-List correspondence. This, however, in no way diminished my respect for his scholarship. You refer to yourself, Edwina, as responding "promptly." In fact, in the past and even recently you've responded, often hostilely, to a post of Jon's before I've even had a chance to finish reading it! Yesterday you posted three truculent posts more or less following that pattern. ET: There is no evidence that understanding a post requires a long time. Nor is there any evidence that people ‘following the argument’ have trouble keeping up..since, I doubt if most of the people on this list are following what goes on between JAS and myself… GR: Another presumption of yours with zero evidence. In fact, I have already had off-List responses thanking me for requesting a reduction of individual postings. And, of course, this request applies as much to Jon -- and every Peirce-l poster - as it does to you. For Jon too has at times had a tendency to post with too great a frequency. ET: I know that those who have written me privately don’t bother with JAS’s comments. GR: What matter is that to me or to the List? You have your coterie -- once led by John Sowa -- which, as is known to at least several here, a couple years ago harassed not only Jon but me as well, Jon on and off List, me off List. I won't rehash the ugly name calling, but it was truly one of the low points of my life. Suffice it to say that it resulted in John Sowa being permanently removed from Peirce-L.It is *that* crew which almost brought down Peirce-L several years ago. Meanwhile, over the years I have heard from those who find JAS's comments of considerable value; and I include myself in those who see his scholarship sound and, truly, invaluable. I base this on my own understanding of Peirce, and as I as I see many scholars see things. Jon has also made considerable advances in Peirce studies, imo. ET: I think it is unreasonable to request that people only post once a day. After all- not all our posts require a reference to a text and therefore don’t require ‘looking it up’. Many times, the posts are about our own interpretations…and no reference to a text can change those interpretations. [ eg, JAS's instance on the genuine or degenerate nature of the DO DI, II, DI, FI… GR: That may be so for some posts, but not for all. For example, one of your posts yesterday pointed to Peirce's famous discussion of his and his wife's commenting of the weather outside. I looked that passage up to remind myself exactly what Peirce wrote. That's the kind of informal inquiry which I would hope that at least some on this List do, and which I know that Jon and others on this post consider important to understanding others' viewpoints, especially those that may differ from their own. This is very different from the "shoot at the hip" sort of rehash of old "set in stone" positions which some cling to even as the Peirce community as a whole may see things quite differently. ET: However - I find it useless to argue with JAS so - won’t bother. [ As Marty has also said]. And we can go back to the Long Silence of the Peirce List. GR: Good. Don't continue your fruitless 'debate' with Jon. It's so unpleasant and 'disagreeable'. And need I empathize that it was your and and Sowa's and a few others' antipathy, downright hostility to Jon Alan Schmidt's approach to inquiry almost brought down this List. It is THAT which created what you called "the Long Silence on the Peirce List." It was apparently either going to be Sowa's voice or "the Long Silence." The latter was preferable. In any event, I will absolutely not allow *that* to happen again, and intend to do everything I possibly can to oppose the animosity, the vitriol that some on this List continue to spew on a scholar simply attempting to do good philosophical work in his own way. I am not the only one to approve of Jon's work, work which continues to be published in Peircean and semiotic journals. In addition, some of his work applies Peircean thinking to the *practical* realms you and a few others call for, including his own speciality of engineering. He is, infact, a highly respected commentator on, for example, the ethics of engineering, and he appears not only in American but many European, Asian, and South American journals. Jon is a gentleman scholar and too modest to ever point such things out, but he always credits those who have helped him better understand Peircean matters, including you, Edwina, and others on this List, including me, I'm proud to say. In any event, if necessary I will remove anyone who persists in any instance of unethical behavior such as that which not too long ago compromised the integrity and value of this List. I would rather have another "long silence" here than allow for such vituperative posts which ultimately persuaded some to leave this List. So, I am instructing Ben Udell, co-manager of the List, to* immediately* remove anyone whom I see as not practicing the Peircean ethics of inquiry which Joe Ransdell outlined so many years ago in consideration of Peirce-L. https://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm There will be no second and third chances which I gave John Sowa -- in consideration of his reputation and the decade long personal relationship I had with him through ICCS -- before removing him permanently from Peirce-L. I am sick to death of such utter lack of collegiality that some have shown here, and I now have zero patience for the continuation of it and whatever the fallout. I hope that in time, especially young scholars will again feel free to express their views here without having to fear the unpleasantness of hostile, defamatory, demoralizing, uncollegial exchanges. Most sincerely, Gary Richmond (writing as moderator, and co-manager with Ben Udell of Peirce-L) On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:05 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R > > I presume JAS is complaining about the fact that I reply promptly. He has > complained about this before. There is no evidence that understanding a > post requires a long time. Nor is there any evidence that people ‘following > the argument’ have trouble keeping up..since, I doubt if most of the people > on this list are following what goes on between JAS and myself… I know that > those who have written me privately don’t bother with JAS’s comments. > > I think it is unreasonable to request that people only post once a day. > After all- not all our posts require a reference to a text and therefore > don’t require ‘looking it up’. Many times, the posts are about our own > interpretations…and no reference to a text can change those > interpretations. [ eg, JAS's instance on the genuine or degenerate nature > of the DO DI, II, DI, FI… > > However - I find it useless to argue with JAS so - won’t bother. [ As > Marty has also said]. And we can go back to the Long Silence of the Peirce > List. > > Edwina. > > On Jun 25, 2025, at 8:53 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List, > > Responses to some posts in recent days have come so speedily that one > wonders if the post being responded to could possibly have been fully > 'digested'. Whether or not that is the case for the responder, having > several list members posting several times a day makes it difficult for > those following the argumentations to keep up. For example, I like to look > up at least some of the internal quotations and/or Peirce references in > some posts. > > So as List moderator I am requesting that Peirce-L members post no more > than a single post a day in a given thread, and no more than twice a day if > they are participating in two threads. My hope is that this discipline > might prove beneficial to both posters, responders, and those following a > threaded conversation. > > Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator) > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
