Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Banned

Expand Messages
  • Susan Schnelbach
    No one is currently banned, Bill. But there are rules and flooding the group is against the rules. And I think you misunderstand first amendment rights. The
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      No one is currently banned, Bill. But there are rules and flooding the group is against the rules.

      And I think you misunderstand "first amendment rights." The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, which means no one can be imprisoned or threatened to prevent them from speaking their mind. Asking someone to restrict their postings to five or fewer times a day hardly infringes on someone's right to speak their mind, it is merely asking them to use good manners and not flood the group with messages. Not much different from chasing someone out of your house for being an ass during a dinner party.

      However, I do tend to agree with you and prefer not to have to ban people from participating, under the assumption that you all are adults and are perfectly capable of governing your own behavior, including ignoring posts and posters you choose not to interact with. This is, after all, only a virtual discussion group. If someone doesn't want to interact with Dick, merely program your email reader to move his posts directly to your email trash. Or, if you read directly from the Yahoo Groups website, just don't click on his posts. See? Easy to deal with.

      It always baffles me that some people in this group take the discussion so seriously and get so bent out of shape over someone's opinion. Seriously... this is just a philosophical discussion. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and represents one person's opinion, not scientific fact.

      So, that being said... is anyone reading anything interesting?

      - Susan


      On Jul 1, 2012, at 3:13 PM, William wrote:

      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > At one time Dick was banned for overposting and violating the rules in general. After everyone dropped out of the group, we removed all the "banned" names and allowed general membership again in the hopes of reviving the group.
      > >
      > > Needless to say, I'm rethinking that decision.
      > >
      > > Again, I'd like to remind everyone, if you don't like to read Dick's postings, don't read them. It's easy to move posts to the trash without ever having to read it. I'll see what I can do about banning him again, as long as a few other people are going to be participating.
      > >Susan, I do not like banning. Existentialism is about freedom,at least it is to me. Certainly most of us here have been at odds with Dick but that does not make him banned. The most recent attacks on Dick were most violent and profane. I do not pretend to know what existentialism says about kicking a man when he is down but common decency makes that sort of authoritaranism anathama. Now as a brit he has no implied first amendment rights but as a US owned site I would think we would extend our cherished freedoms to others.If not as Americans your husband and you should cherish free speech as an acedemic right .Don`t ban Dick, don`t ban anyone for their ideas,argue with them but do not ban. Bill
      > >
      > >
      > > On Jul 1, 2012, at 11:33 AM, William wrote:
      > >
      > > > I am told that someone has been banned from this site. I would like an explanation since it seems I was in a conversation with him at the time. Has policy changed, who may join? In a group struggling for its numerical existance doctrinal excommunications seem suicidal. Don`t duck it Susan,what gives? Bill
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Susan Schnelbach
      No, Mary. My posting below is fairly clear that at this time, no one is banned from the group. Membership is open (unrestricted). ... [Non-text portions of
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        No, Mary. My posting below is fairly clear that at this time, no one is banned from the group. Membership is open (unrestricted).



        On Jul 1, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Mary wrote:

        > This is confusing, Susan. Is Dick banned or not? Is he banned because some of us have returned or because he's violating rules? Are you suggesting his e-mails are permitted only when participation is down,? If it's a matter of rules, except for polite members like Louise, Jim, Wil, Irvin, and Peter, we also violate when strongly disagreeing.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > At one time Dick was banned for overposting and violating the rules in general. After everyone dropped out of the group, we removed all the "banned" names and allowed general membership again in the hopes of reviving the group.
        > >
        > > Needless to say, I'm rethinking that decision.
        > >
        > > Again, I'd like to remind everyone, if you don't like to read Dick's postings, don't read them. It's easy to move posts to the trash without ever having to read it. I'll see what I can do about banning him again, as long as a few other people are going to be participating.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > On Jul 1, 2012, at 11:33 AM, William wrote:
        > >
        > > > I am told that someone has been banned from this site. I would like an explanation since it seems I was in a conversation with him at the time. Has policy changed, who may join? In a group struggling for its numerical existance doctrinal excommunications seem suicidal. Don`t duck it Susan,what gives? Bill
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.