RE : Why This List/ Hur/ 4 max a BAD idea!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@>

wrote:

> >

> > --- Hur <hur@> a ?rit :

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Pete S

> > <pedsie5@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >>>

> > > >>> P: ...Is not excessive posting

> > > >>> of 'personal interest items' not related to

> > > >>> Nis, advaita, or nondualism, abusing the list?

> > > >>> Is it not your job as owner to protect the list

> > > >>> from spam?

> >

> > There are two questions about excessive posting

> >

> > 1. Quality.

> > 2. Quantity.

> >

> > Since the quality issue is more subjective, then let

> > me ask a

> > question, how many messages can a member post to be in

> > the safe area?

> > 3, 5?

> >

> > This is a serious questions and I'd like to hear from

> > the rest of the

> > members. Maybe we can set up a daily quota of some

> > sort (sorry, no

> > rollover minutes?.

> >

> > Hur

> > ..............................................................

> > great idea.

> > I would say about 4 messages max, would really make us

> > think before sending in delirious comments.

> >

> > Patricia

> >

>

> Oh no... that would be totally absurd!

>

> If someone writes one post that is interesting enough

> to draw four responses, then he/she cannot even respond

> to more than three of those and then is done for the

> day!

>

> Let's not crimp quality posting because of wanting to

> hem in abuse!

>

> Bill

>

 

 

Just a holy moment thar Bill-iam,

 

let us define 'abuse' first.

 

You can call me anything and if I don't get offended is it abuse?

 

If my feelings may be temporarily hurt, and I choose not to respond

in like manner, is it abuse?

 

??????????????????????

 

Or do You define it for me and keep me 'safe' from abuse? (And

please let us just keep the term as it would be deemed applicable

in these internet venues, thank you very much.)

 

Ana