Re: [Critical-Realism] Easy solution

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ruth

Your solution of "not responding" is reasonable but ambiguous. (Given time,
would you read the contributions anyway)? 

Tim's reduction of that to "automatic deletion" is neither reasonable nor a
solution.  It is certainly the simplest way, but it is also the easiest way
to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The finder may not yet have seen
the point, the productivity may be in respect of aims which are actually
complementary rather than contrary ("counter"), someone doing harm is also
someone who needs helping.  Even paranoics have a point of view which may
one day resurface.   

How often does original and significant thought fail to find a publisher or
academic recognition  through the binning of anything which has not yet
earned repute, despite the publishing of anything (however evil) known to
sell to an audience susceptible to advertising (i.e. gullible), monistic
"efficiency" or fashionable automation?

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ruth
Groff
Sent: 13 June 2007 14:42
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Easy solution

Hi all,

It seems to me that the simplest way of dealing with a contributor on
listserv whose posts people find to be off-point, counter-productive or even
harmful is, after saying so, and why, to just not respond to them.  I mean
really; just not at all.  Admittedly this is a moderated list, and one time
we had to ask someone to leave, so that is also an option.  Still, it's easy
enough to hit delete without even reading the post.       

Ruth  



_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism