Deletion is always a possibility. So is unsubscribing. There are occasionally 
(rarely though) useful bits in these disputations about meaning. As I have 
tried to point out, they strike me as both unPeircean (no practical 
consequences, no problem solved) and not particularly well-connected to the 
vast literature on lexical meanings or cognizant of the kind of “essentialist 
disputes” that bothers many philosophers.

I do look through them all, however. The reason is that I am a novice to 
Peircean studies and am writing a book (Oxford U P) on the consequences of his 
epistemology for modern linguistics (which has been deeply Cartesian in the 
main for decades). So when more experienced Peirce scholars discuss his terms, 
it can be educational.

I think that the suggestion of taking a few deep breaths before responding and 
perhaps responding once a day instead of several times would/could lead to 
better responses of more benefit to others.

To delete the messages would require me to know in advance that there is 
nothing in them that I want to know. So I look through them and then delete 
them if I am going to. Time-consuming.

At the same time, let a hundred flowers bloom. If folks want to keep shooting 
out their messages this frequently, so be it. But many of us will be more 
likely to read them if they come less frequently. If these are just personal 
quibbles, though, perhaps they don’t need to be on the list. If they are felt 
worthy for the entire list, frequency reduction would be useful. But if not, I 
won’t say another word on the subject.

Dan

On Feb 12, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Edwina Taborsky 
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:


List - 200 in one week? That's about 20 per day! I admit I wasn't aware of that 
many.

What seems to happen is that list members are involved in only a few but not 
all discussions. With most topics, there can be a great deal of discussion 
among just a few participants - if I myself don't participate then I simply 
delete them - even without reading if it's a topic outside of my focus.

That would be my suggestion for the 'many posts'. I'm on other lists and the 
same thing happens; a few participants get into a topic in depth. If it's 
outside of my focus or I can't participate for various reasons  - I simply 
delete.

Edwina



On Sun 11/02/18 11:45 PM , Gary Richmond 
gary.richm...@gmail.com<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> sent:

John, List,

John Sowa wrote: "Since the beginning of February, there have been over 200 
emails
on Peirce-L."

Thanks, John, for seconding my idea that it might be important--and even 
valuable--for very active participants in the forum to make an attempt to 
reduce the frequency of their postings.

I would hope that John's observing that there have "over 200 emails" on the 
list in February--and we haven't yet reached the middle of the month!--ought 
suggest to all that there may have been of late an all too rapid exchange of 
messages to Peirce-l from a very few participants. And I can't imagine that I 
am the only reader of these many posts who has noticed that there has been 
quite a bit of, shall we say, redundancy of content of some (many?) posts.

I hope that I've made it clear that I do not want in any way to inhibit 
participation on the list. But there ought to be a way in which frequent 
contributors to our forum might find their way to practicing some additional 
self-discipline as to frequency of posting.

Again, as I first wrote:

GR: I would like to suggest that frequent contributors to discussions consider 
holding off on at least some responses (especially when they are but a sentence 
or three), posting fewer but perhaps somewhat longer messages. The 
benefit--besides there being fewer postings--could be that such an approach 
might allow for more time for additional thoughtful reflection on the matter(s) 
under consideration (and not only for active contributors) .

In short, such self-discipline could possibly benefit all of us: participants 
and lurkers.

Best,

Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)






Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
718 482-5690

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:06 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2018 2:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I have recently received a few complaints and two requests to
be removed from the list (I'm not certain if or how many have unsubscribed 
themselves) because of "too many emails," and as
list moderator that naturally concerns me.

Since the beginning of February, there have been over 200 emails
on Peirce-L.  I've been tied up with other work and have only
had a chance to sample a few snowflakes in this storm.

Fortunately, I direct all Peirce-L notes to a special folder,
where they can pile up undisturbed.  I don't want to block
anybody's "way of inquiry", but I second Gary's concerns.

John


-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
<http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .








-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send 
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe 
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to