Hmmm. I read a lot but I buy even more. One day I'll look at all the books on my "to read" shelves and realize that I am not going to catch up unless I quit buying books for awhile, but, but, but there are some really interesting books out there that I discover I just have to have. I am ever so slowly making my way through Nest of Spies, America's Journey to Disaster in Iran by Amir Tahieri; which was published in 1988 and I started reading perhaps not back then but it seems like it. Just recently for example I encountered an interesting reference to Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil; so when that arrived I once again set Taheri aside. In other words what I read should be under my control and not under someone else's. In other other words, please don't suggest to Amazon.com that they quit selling me books until I catch up. Lawrence From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McCreery Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 7:29 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature 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: <mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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" < <mailto:andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx> andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx > To: < <mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > <http://www.andreas.com> www.andreas.com > -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 http://www.wordworks.jp/