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

  • From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:29:22 +0900

The problem is that, if one were to use a filter, one would never see
Speranza's posts.  I was reasonably clear that I do like them--in smaller
doses. I would recommend to J. L. that he will have a larger and more
sympathetic audience if he moderates his pace a bit.
Cheers,

John



On 10/26/07, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  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
> >
>
>
>



-- 
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/

Other related posts:

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