Thank you for a very warm introduction --- and the fascinating discussion that followed.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to respond to each and every question. I will do so when I free up. Time is in very short supply right now. - James B., 007 P.S. I don't know what to make of some of the comments (e.g. the "Double O Seven" and the 007" comment). I will wait for a clarification from whoever made those comments. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:38 PM, James Bonilla <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, metta is goodwill. Goodwill is metta. > > Metta, goodwill, these are the only things that matter. Everything else is > quite pointless. > > - JB 007 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Venkat Mangudi - Silk < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Almost forgot, >> >> P. P. S: I think Eugen Leitl is a great guy and seriously jealous of him >> for a bunch of reasons. >> On Sep 10, 2015 11:51 AM, "Venkat Mangudi - Silk" <[email protected] >> > >> wrote: >> >> > 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)) >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >
