Le vendredi 1 novembre 2019, 14:09:23 CET Dora Scilipoti a écrit : > On 11/01/2019 07:39 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Ruben is a prolific poster who has already made his case that all this > > is just falsehoods and defamation. We are just going to have to agree > > to disagree on that. > > Well, I had never read Ruben's case before, because I joined this list > later (and my subscription request was delayed by almost five days, by > the way.) That may also be the case of the person he is responding to, > or the case of the person his message is related to, whose first and > only post to this list seems to be the one sent on Oct 30. Given that > this is a new relaunch of the list, repetition every now and then may > actually be necessary.
+1 Yet mailing-list archives may be a solution in this kind of case. Though not everybody might be willing to go dig up there. Would be better if, like other mailing-list softwares I saw, we could be resent back the previous mail by asking the mailing-list software (and that could allow to answer these messages, without making a new thread)… maybe even by querying subjects matching a certain regexp… > Simply repeating your opinion over and over > > > again, while personally attacking the people you don't agree with, > > does not make for a very pleasant discussion. > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. I think it was about *personal* repetition. Because for instance Jean Louis posted a lot (like more than a half-dozen) several-pages-long messages stating the same thing at short intervals. So it likely applies to a single individual repeating oneself, not to several individual saying the same (thus likely expressing it differently, and certainly adding the information that they too support that view). However like you said before, repetition may be useful for newcomers and different thread (when no-newcomers will ignore what have been said). But for these case I think private sending of such repeated information could do, without bloating the list with redundant information, and that wouldn’t be enforceable or impedable by any moderation. Then, adressed individuals could, privately, without bloating, answer that they learnt something, or that they already new and that message was useless, for good sender acknowledgment to progressively learn to become more effective.
