From: Hubert Mania (humania@t-online.de)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 02:13:25 MDT
Emlyn wrote:
> I support Mark's idea above; I think public killfiles are a great
> idea; it's > a strong decentralised alternative to moderation.
>
> But I'd call it a filter; what you are doing, after all, is filtering the
> list.
No, it's filtering *people*. I don't know about your individual eagerness to
spread the memes of transhumanism. But If you already fail to listen to
people who were determined enough to subscribe to a transhumanist email
list, I wonder how much patience you will have with people who never heard
of this meme complex before. From my point of view you (plural: all people
with killfiles) already fail at this very first step of a specific email
list, where people meet to talk about future development and how to realize
these ideas.
The very existence of killfiles and the very choice of this word might be
taken as an insult.
To refer to killfiles as a generally accepted internet custom does not
convince me. I always thought we wanted to make it better.
By the way, as far as I am concerned, I simply want to expand my knowledge.
That's why I am here. I am no missionary and I am not interested in gaining
power and influence in society to boost technological or transhumanist
development.
> For an implementation, I'd actually like the option to receive all the
> email
> from my killfile, but with a tag in the subject like "[filtered]" so thatI
> can have them automatically shunt them into a different mail folder, as I
> do like to peruse my killfile occasionally.
Honestly, I do not understand why you make such a fuzz about ist, adding
more control procedures, or urging list administrators to implement more
functions that might make the system susceptible to collapses.
Why don't you (plural again) just relax and let the news stream into your
computer and forget about control for a while . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 02:23:23 MDT