P{ROPOSAL: Cut the posts in half

fajardos at SPAMix.netcom.com fajardos at SPAMix.netcom.com
Mon Nov 29 22:32:45 MST 1999

Shit, you think THIS is bad?  At the urging of an Episcopalean friend of
mine with whom I have been discussing and arguing matters for years, I
subbed to an Anglican mailing list he's subbed to and from which he used
to forward things occasionally, and damn if I don't find two- to
three-hundred messages, yes that's right, 300!, a day from that thing,
and often the consist of little more than recipe for feast days, and
back and forth over "insults" which on this list would pass unnoticed
(and forget about even the least bloody times on Marxism-General).

Louis put in no limit because he expected that we could limit ourselves,
and knew that we could hit on the formula that you yourself have found):
selective reading.  If I was to argue for limiting of posts it would not
be because of the reasons you cite, but because it costs Louis money for
every message we send, even the inane ones.

- Juan

Borba100 at aol.com wrote:
> A deluge is as bad as a drought.  There are no so many posts on this list
> that it is absurtd to read everything.  Most are more or less chit chat,
> often direcatble to one person rather than the list.  COuld we have some
> limiting here? a) No more than two posts by anyone in one day and b) no chit
> chat.  (Chit chat does not mean serious disagreement expressed briefly; it
> means - chit chat.  Cute but DILUTEES the effect of the list by forcing us to
> choose arbitrarily what to read - I for one read much less than I would if
> there were less food on plate.
> Best
> Jared

More information about the Marxism mailing list