I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings seem to be adjunct to this problem.
People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list.

If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull, so hopeless.

Best, Kirsti

Ia mail is sent to the list,

Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.2.2018 16:40:

I also have to unsubscribe periodically, as I don't have time
even to scan for relevance, and many postings recently appear
to move ever so agonizingly and asymptotically toward first
principles without quite grasping them, much less applying
them to non-trivial problems in any field beyond various
folks' hermeneutically sealed bubbles -- but I digress --
At any rate, one thing I find helpful, since I usually
read posts first at the Web Interface, is to toggle
the No Mail subscriber option on, allowing me to
re-send only selected posts to my email inbox
for archiving or reply.



On 2/12/2018 9:01 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:
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.


PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to