Digested is the term found on the website where all list members can go to check who is on the list. People on the "digested" side receive only ONE daily e-mail, which contains ALL the messages posted fot that day. I used to use that but found it difficult to read through and to reply to. I prefer the "non-digested" mode where each posting comes as an individual message. Follow these sites to look for yourselves:
http://charlesvillage.info/mailman/listinfo/chat_charlesvillage.info http://charlesvillage.info/mailman/listinfo/discussion_charlesvillage.info Sincerely, W. Brad Schlegel 1552 Oakridge Road Baltimore, MD 21218-2228 410-467-1933 - H 410-962-9506 - W and Voice Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Discussion] revoking access and list rules > Im not sure what you mean by 'digested' as in 'Readers Digest' > Or, chewed up and not spit out...? > At any rate, Jenny, your proposed rules would effectively strike out > one of our more regular, and respectful contributors, Brad. > > > -- "Brad Schlegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jenny, > > I would feel badly if the list was restricted to only CVers. I have made > several good friends through this list and have been a member for over 6 > years. At one time we had many more contributors, but the "fighting" by a > minority led to a large drop out rate. Nonetheless as of today the > composition of the lists are: > 38 Non-digested Members of Chat: 8 Digested Members of Chat: > > 50 Non-digested Members of Discussion: 12 Digested Members of > Discussion: > > > Sincerely, > > W. Brad Schlegel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jenny Rolling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Charles Village Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Discussion] revoking access and list rules > > >>I would support a ban if this person is not a Charles >> Villager or someone with a reasonable stake in the >> neighborhood. I've only ever belonged to one other >> email list and that one had strict rules, so I am >> personally used to it. I think it would be a good way >> to perhaps get more people to contribute more >> regularly if there were rules against (1) non CVers >> (and those refusing to reveal their identities at >> least to the list administrator) and (2) those using >> undue amounts of profanity, personal attacks on >> others, and other generally offensive behavior. >> >> Ever notice that there are only about 5 people that >> contribute reularly, maybe 12 max? It's probably >> mostly because other people don't want to bother with >> the garbage. To run a better list, you have to be >> willing to get rid of the garbage. The other list I >> was a member of had about 50 regular contributors to >> very interesting discussions. Lots of disagreement, >> but also lots of respect. >> >> How about a discussion about some list rules? >> >> I support revoking Hobble's access to the list. I >> think it's a no brainer. >> >> To those of you would might like to make this a larger >> issue about free speech, etc... how about creating an >> environment where a greater number of people can feel >> able/comfortable participating? How about a slightly >> more professional email list? These are also good >> goals that are completely in line with free speech >> ideals. >> >> Jenny >> >> --- Kiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Emil: >>> >>> I propose a full ban on the basis of Hobble's >>> refusal to reveal his >>> identity. An ultimatum should be given to Hobble to >>> either reveal who he is, >>> where he comes from and what he is doing here, or >>> face a ban from the list, >>> which would, or should, apply equally to any >>> subsequent identities or emails >>> he might adopt to try to circumvent that move-- the >>> advantage of the people >>> on this list being that we are all smart people and >>> can tell when someone >>> with a certain attitude is the same person under a >>> new alias-- in other >>> words that we're not indiscriminate about WHO we >>> ban. >>> >>> Arjay agrees with this as well; see his post to the >>> list. >>> >>> On your concern about free speech. I do not think it >>> violates free and equal >>> speech to do this. If an anonymous pedophile came on >>> the list and started >>> talking about raping children, I should hope that >>> we'd be principled enough >>> to kick him or her off the list. If an anonymous >>> Klan member started coming >>> on the list and talking about "killing the k---s and >>> the n-----s," I should >>> similarly hope that we'd be principled enough to >>> kick him or her off the >>> list. >>> >>> And just to show you I'm balanced about this, if I, >>> or someone claiming to >>> be communist (or anarchist) with views claiming to >>> be similar to my own, >>> that refused to identify himself or herself and his >>> or her location of >>> origin (the general expectation being that the >>> people on this list either >>> reside, formerly reside or are closely associated >>> with residents of the >>> Charles Village area of Baltimore), and that person >>> named names of specific >>> people s/he was going to go and commit violent acts >>> to, or that s/he was >>> going to throw bmbs, or burn particular things, laid >>> out plans or >>> blueprints, or ANYTHING, etc. etc., I should equally >>> hope that that person >>> would be dropped from the list like a hot potato to >>> avoid the CV list being >>> implicated in entirely inappropriate and unlawful >>> activity! (Remember what >>> the FBI did to the Weathermen? I hate the FBI and >>> the government, but the >>> Weathermen were just stupid, and juvenile, and >>> smarter people such as myself >>> thoroughly know that actions like theirs, or like >>> the above, are never the >>> way to make a revolution.) >>> >>> To my mind, Hobble D. Goo is a lesser example of all >>> those extremes, the >>> primary thrust of the situation being that 1) to a >>> lesser, less damaging, >>> but no less overall disruptive degree, the whole >>> purpose of his being on the >>> list has always and forever, so far, been ONLY to >>> incite, never to discuss >>> or contribute in any form; and 2) he is anonymous, >>> and stays anonymous, >>> presumably with the endgoal of being able to >>> continue (1) without being >>> personally implicated in it, or tracked down. >>> >>> Because of those two things, and due to Arjay's >>> agreement with me about the >>> identity concealment thing, I stick by my original >>> proposal for a total ban >>> of Hobble from the list, and I contend that this has >>> gone beyond the realm >>> of personal opinion and has emerged as fact. Note >>> that my number one >>> "ideological foe" (who I actually really like) >>> on-list has agreed with me >>> that it's wimpy of Hobble D. Goo to take potshots at >>> people and not own up >>> to them by revealing him or her self! If the primary >>> person I virulently >>> disagree with, and sometimes outright oppose, is >>> agreeing with me about an >>> issue of practicality, you've got to know >>> something's up and that the matter >>> should be seriously considered. >>> >>> Frankly, I don't think Christine and Steve are >>> taking the matter seriously >>> _enough_. But, THAT is indeed just my personal >>> opinion. <g> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Nico >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Emil Volcheck >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:34 PM >>> > To: Kiko >>> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Subject: Re: proposal to ban hobble >>> > >>> > Hi, Nico, >>> > >>> > Well, it sounds like it's time to do something >>> about this. >>> > >>> > Matthew has some of the same concerns you do, so >>> I'm copying >>> > him. Matthew proposed requiring members of the >>> Discussion >>> > List to reveal their identity. You mention this >>> as well. >>> > I'm torn about this, because the "anonymous >>> pamphleteer" has >>> > a tradition of receiving First Amendment >>> protection, however >>> > when the pamphleteer stuffs your mailbox, that's >>> not >>> > necessarily protected. Of course the Discussion >>> List is >>> > private, and we can make the rules, but I want to >>> try to keep >>> > good principles in mind. >>> > >>> > Another approach would be to sanction Hobble, say >>> suspending >>> > posting privileges for a number of months. >>> > >>> > What are you interested in seeing? suspension? >>> ban? >>> > revealing identity? Something else? >>> > >>> > --Emil >>> > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Kiko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 08:34 PM >>> > > To: ''Emil Volcheck'' >>> > > Subject: proposal to ban hobble >>> > > >>> > > Emil: >>> > > >>> > > I would like to issue a formal proposal to ban >>> Hobble D. >>> > Goo from the >>> > > Discussion listserv. He has been nothing but a >>> disruptive influence >>> > > and only stops in every now and again to throw >>> potshots at list >>> > > members. He contributes nothing positive. He is, >>> as they say in the >>> > > internet world, a Troll. >>> > > >>> > > My own personal politics aside, and the fact >>> that most people >>> > > including myself regularly ignore him, it's >>> still somewhat >>> > frustrating >>> > > to have messages of his cluttering my inbox, and >>> I'm sure >>> > other list >>> > > members feel similarly, given their occassional >>> responses >>> > to the situation. >>> > > >>> > > Furthermore, and this is a further piece of >>> evidence that he is a >>> > > troll and nothing more, he absolutely refuses to >>> identify >>> > himself or where he resides. >>> > > How do we even know that Hobble is a Charles >>> Village resident or >>> > > former resident? How do we know that he ever, in >>> fact, under any >>> > > different name, ever contributed anything >>> positive to the >>> > list or to >>> > > the community? As I see it, if we keep him on, >>> we are implicitly >>> > > validating his right to be here, when he may not >>> even have >>> > that right as a total and complete outsider. >>> > > >>> > > If you know who he is, now would be a great time >>> to spill >>> _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list Chat@charlesvillage.info http://charlesvillage.info/mailman/listinfo/chat_charlesvillage.info
