Carroll: none of those posts ever bothered even to hint that perhaps we
should ask Lenin's question (even if we didn't accept his answers, which fit
1905): WITBD.
The absence of interest in this question; in fact the absence any hint that
the question existed, pretty much convinced me that the
In a message dated 9/3/2009 9:15:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
schaf...@optonline.net writes:
i don't want to spend my time picking through marxmail posts looking for
interesting discussions. i do want to spend time picking through
interesting discussions finding pointers to more
Patrick Bond wrote:
I'm voting, as usual, for full posting of articles - copyrights be damned.
I agree, generally the burden of requiring *interactive* getting (by
web) of things in the context of poor connectivity is greater than the
burden of getting a large amount of redundant, but easily
.
- Original Message -
From: Ambrose Andrews ambrose-b...@vrvl.net
To: Michael Karadjis mkarad...@theplanet.net.au
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Long posts not allowed??
Patrick Bond wrote:
I'm voting, as usual, for full posting of articles - copyrights
Les wrote:
2009/9/1 Les Schaffer schaf...@optonline.net:
i can think of two or three solutions to this problem...
1. a separate companion list for news and forwards
From my standpoint, this proposal is utterly without value. My comments on
the list often, and even usually take the form of
I don't really see a problem with the long posts. Yesterday, for example,
DNRath posted a simply extraordinary, and long, article on shipbreaking in
India. The list will be poorer without these types of contributions.
Speaking of contributions, several days ago in discussing railroads and
Les Schaffer (schaf...@optonline.net) wrote on 2009-08-31 at 16:38:28 in
about Re: [Marxism] Long posts not allowed??:
but i have my own opinion on this. and that is, in my opinion, the list
has become way too much a news-forwarding list and much less so an
interesting list
Lüko Willms wrote:
Talk to a certain L.P. who is forwarding two-thirds of articles or
naked URLs and curtailing discussions.
so you are agreeing with me that we should have less forwarding and more
discussion?
except Lou is one of the people who forwards stuff and who actively
engages
Patrick Bond wrote:
I'm voting, as usual, for full posting of articles - copyrights be damned.
The reason is that I sit at the base of Africa (in Durban) and I think
it's fair to say that this entire continent suffers a huge digital
divide in getting quick and reliable access to the
Les Schaffer wrote:
3. Mailman has a Topics feature
reading the Topics description again myself, it seems the Mailman
behavior would need to be modified so that people could subscribe to
news and fwded content particularly while still receiving regular
postings. i would not want to require
Jeff lays out the issue well. i would like to see some discussion on it.
the Subject line is a little off, the rule is not about length of posts
per se (the limit is 35 kB), but the length of a post which is already
available somewhere else on the web.
one point: Jeff states that for the
At 16:38 31/08/09 -0400, Les Schaffer wrote:
anyway, please discuss the issues of bandwidth, ease of reading long
online articles, difficulty parsing long posts, etc.
And I just wanted to correct the numbers I threw out before, when I said
that the webpage (107KB) was 7 times more data than the
Jeff wrote:
And I just wanted to correct the numbers I threw out before, when I said
that the webpage (107KB) was 7 times more data than the same article sent
as an email (16KB). It's much worse! I hadn't noticed, but that particular
webpage (but again, this is typical) was only the FIRST of 3
Les offers a telling comment on the potential value of the list for
discussion...as opposed to the mere forwarding of electronic
clippings.
I've suggested in the past...and would resurrect it here...that we
have particular topics for discussion at intervals. Other things
could be posted, as
14 matches
Mail list logo
