[lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature

  • From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:15:05 +0100

I agree with Lawrence!!!

Simon
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:01 PM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature


  I fail to see the problem here.  The technology of any modern email utility 
allows you to have J. L. Esperanza's posts sent directly to your junk mail 
folder.  You don't  have to look at his posts.  You can even empty your 
junk-mail folder without checking to see what's in it.   J.L.  For you  who 
wish J.L.'s posts to disappear, they will - and they could have all along 
-without your having to go off in a huff or get the list administrator to 
antagonize poor old J.L. and perhaps ruin him for the rest of us.   

   

   

  Lawrence

   

   

   

   

   

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Julie Krueger
  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:32 AM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature

   

  I second that emotion.  Sure, I don't have time to mess with hundreds of 
posts from dozens of list-serves a day.  But the "delete" key is only a finger 
away.  If I were put-out by JL's number of posts I would either filter him or 
simply delete them.  As is, he is way over my head much of the time.  I skim 
the posts, read if I'm interested, don't read if I'm not.  Neither the 
list-serve nor JL is forcing me to look at an e-mail which appears in my in-box 
with his sender name. 

  I'm wondering if this issue comes down to the use of bandwidth time for 
people who pay by the hour or minute for internet access?  Since I do a 
flat-rate monthly unlimited access thing, it isn't an concern for me, but I can 
understand how it could be to someone punching the clock on download time. 

  Julie Krueger

  On 10/26/07, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

  > you gotta stop with the multiple postings per day.

   

  Why????????????   I don't understand.  Who is forced to read his posts?  Is 
there a per post charge by the list-serv?  Who is being put out by this?  I 
find almost all of JL's posts witty and enlightening and charming.  When he 
first started posting back on Phil-Lit people complained and whined about the 
length of his posts.  That was quite a while ago.  Now he's more judicious in 
the longevity of his posts.  But now people complain about his frequency.  I 
think people are just envious of his breath of scope.  I only envy his free 
time, as we all must, but why would you or anyone want to impose limits?  If he 
has the time and energy and knowledge, more power to him.  He has brought new 
life to a dying list.  I don't understand nor will I ever accept any limits on 
the freedom to post unless you can show some harm to the community of posters 
besides their envy.

   

  Mike Geary

  Memphis

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx >

  To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >

  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:34 PM

  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature

   

  > 
  > people are emailing me and asking me to talk with you.
  > 
  > one has unsubcribed due to your excessive number of emails.
  > 
  > either 5 per day max, or i put you on review, which means your emails go to 
  > me for personal approval.
  > 
  > yrs,
  > andreas
  > www.andreas.com
  >

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007