He's said he's 23--and you're welcome to him, Gillian, if you find
him so appealing. I've found him ignorant, arrogant, and obnoxious
myself, especially in his b-c communique. And John is right to
defend that space for all of us. Spam is spam, and it certainly
doesn't come under the purview of Netiquette (disagreeing with David
Latane). Nor is there much of a judgment call to make between one
person's harassment and another's idea of lively debate because the
victim of unwanted b-c communications gets to make that call. Once a
back-channeler's been told to go away, any further b-c communications
from him constitute harassment on its face.
Those of you who enjoy Daniel's conversation are perfectly free to
"take it back-channel," as the saying goes. What some of us would like,
alternatively, is to keep the front-channel open to other listees and
other topics, while keeping our in-boxes from being overloaded with
what we consider junk. Is that so unreasonable?
Candice
>> There's a fairly heavy seniority trip being pulled here [noted in several
>> comments over the days, and also in your 'playpen' comment].
>
>Well, I'd withdraw the "playpen" if Daniel would source his Wittgenstein
>comments -- Tractatus, Philosphus, or the Notebooks -- more than several
>Vitties, in't'there?
>
>Oh, gawd' pass us me zimmer frame ...
>
>R .....
|