Welcome to Silk, James. P.S: I hate top posting. P.P.S: I hate responding to a long email thread with one sentence and top posting. :) On Sep 10, 2015 9:33 AM, "Lahar Appaiah" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear James, > > What about the non-Buddhist groups, what do you think is an optimum number > to block? Is there an absolute number (i.e., there will always be 3-4 > pests irrespective of number), or does this tend to be proportionate to the > number of members in the group? Logically, it should be directly > proportionate to the number of people in the group, but I can see a > counter-intuitive argument for inversely proportionate. > > I am a bit confused about the philosophy of blocking, as well. I would > earlier have said that the only people who should be blocked were those who > sent sanctimonious private mails scolding you for top posting, but I have > been thinking this through, and this does not seem to go with what Voltaire > summed up so succinctly. I am not as familiar with Buddhist doctrines as I > should be, so what's your view on blocking anf Buddhism? > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:33 AM, James Bonilla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear Listers and Udhay, > > > > Comments below. > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, James Bonilla <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > But there is one more thing: don't forget to watch out for the hashtag > > > > #silklist_intro on the Buddhist forums. Those forums have a clearly > > > defined > > > > set of rules. And those rules have worked well. That is why I plan to > > > stick > > > > to those forums, where I know quality, non-abusive discussions can be > > > had. > > > > About this list and its politics, I frankly know very little. > > > > > > > > > > As a quick reminder, the most important rule of silklist is "Assume > > > goodwill". This means that you expect the listmembers to be acting in > > good > > > faith as a default position, in the absence of other evidence. > > > > > > I'd encourage you to keep that in mind. Also, keep silklist discussions > > on > > > silklist, please. > > > > > > Udhay > > > > > > > I have seen all too often that one can never assume goodwill. I will do > so > > -- since you request me to do it. > > > > But I am going to have to do one thing right away: I am going to publish > a > > list of people I am going to block/filter out. Even on Buddhist groups, I > > generally publish a list of people who I have blocked. I am quite open > > about the people whose opinions I have filtered out. One mustn't assume > > that one's emails are going to be appealing to all. Generally speaking, > > blocking one or two people is sufficient on most Buddhist groups. > Somehow, > > it works. There is always one or two people who need to be blocked. After > > that, things really settle down. (I know why this happens, and it has to > do > > with the sociology of the Internet, but I won't bore you with the "High > IQ" > > reasons). > > > > In fact, I think it is good practice to just go ahead and block someone. > > This way, you have at least told the other person that you have blocked > > them. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, I think I should > > publish a list of people I shall plan to block. Before I even made the > > first post on this List, I went through some of the earlier discussions. > > > > Based on this, I have decided that I am going to block the following > > people. This list seems to generally have goodwill, so perhaps, that is > why > > I don't have to block a lot of people. To all these people I am > > blocking/filtering out, I will simply say that there is no reason to > assume > > that one is going to be compatible on the Internet with everyone, and > > blocking is often the right thing to do. Good luck with the rest of your > > life! > > > > - Eugen Leitl > > > > - Double O Seven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > > > > >
