Hi Todd >Dogonnit Keith,
Sorry about that. >If the guy is going to behave in such a fashion, those who have to >suffer it should at least be able to grill him about his generalities >and stereotyping until he's forced to admit that there is a lot more to >the bag of beans than he would care to recognize. He won't admit it if he doesn't want to, no matter what you do, you've seen it yourself. Anyway, he's been here for two and a half years already, if he doesn't care to recognise it by now, then again he doesn't want to. (I guess that's his prerogative, but it's not his prerogative to dump it on us, nor on anybody.) Grilling him's unlikely to get anywhere, countering his views would show him up to everyone else but he still wouldn't see it. I think there's no shortage of such demonstrations in the list archives and I doubt doing it again this time would have added anything. >Just throttling the guy lets him off too easy. Now it's he who gets to >claim that his sensibilities were offended, further enforcing and >propigating his peculiar beliefs elsewhere. > >Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves. If they're smart, they won't >use it all. Wouldn't it be true that if they were smart they wouldn't do it in the first place? He already hanged himself, he ignored everything and everyone, that's not smart. >If they aren't, the world should at least be given the >pleasure of watching them swing at the end of the yardarm of their own >making. :-) Do you mean in the sense that justice must be seen to be done or something like that? You might have a point. But really it just wastes time, it's a distraction, it clutters the place up, makes it more difficult for serious people to carry on a reasonable discussion. It's exactly that kind of crap that's truly "off-topic". It doesn't take much to drag a list down, as we all know, just one or two heedless people who want it all their own way. It's because this kept happening time and time again that people started yelling "NO TOPIC-COPS!" in the first place, years ago. We had it all out then, a few times, and that's when the rule was made. We formalised it a year ago, me and a group of list members, the whole list concurred, and that's that. Now it happens much less. Has anything much changed, is there anything more to it now than the following? > >What does it amount to anyway? "You're only allowed to > >talk about what **I** want to talk about"? Usually it's either that > >or a poorly disguised demand for censorship. Or a complaint that > >there isn't any censorship, which looks like Duff's case. Not that > >he'd call it censorship. There's been a constant trickle of these people for nearly five years, and what most of them have in common is that no matter what you do, no matter what's proved or disproved and resides in a publicly accessible archives for all to see, if he wants to claim that it's his sensibilities that were offended and wants to propagate his beliefs elsewhere, HE'LL DO IT ANYWAY. Another thing we've found is that it doesn't matter. If people are smart they'll check, ask a few questions, and quickly discover that he's full of it. If not, then the same applies - what does it matter? Todd, I'm not just dismissing what you say, you make some good points, as ever. I'll surely keep them in mind. Too late this time though. I should say I don't know what Duff will do or won't do, I'm not trying to hang all this on him personally, all I can say is how other people who've expressed the same views have behaved in the past. Anyway it's not my concern. My often-stated position is that as list-owner my first obligation is to the list itself and the issues it represents, my second obligation is to the individual members, UNTIL they put the first obligation at risk. We do everything we can to make sure list members know what kind of community they've joined and how to get the best out of it, if they don't take any notice that's their problem. It's their loss too - it wouldn't be easy to persuade me that heedless and selfish people are any loss to the list. It isn't here for "outreach", it doesn't have a missionary role, it's only here to be useful to its members (many of whom use it as a source for their own outreach). Hey, Todd, all this isn't aimed at you either, just restating policy. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner >Todd Swearingen > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > > >> Greetings to all, I am an avid alternative fuel > >>advocate who is building a large home sized processor. > >>I do hope you will read this and maybe it will help > >>get us back on track!!All this talk of politics as far > >>as I am concerned is for the most part way out of > >>line,and with a lot of misconceptions toward a > >>political adjenda.We All need to get focused on what > >>and where we are headed with the alternative energy > >>issues,and stop talking about all these politics, > >>and put our time and money where our mouths are and DO > >>Something constructive !! Sincerly Spoken.Duff > >>Streeter > >> > >> > > > >Exit Duff Streeter. Sad to say, after more than two years. But he was > >told about this, like everyone else - twice in his case: > > > >List rules: > >http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 > >5-May/000007.html > >Or: > >http://snipurl.com/gi45 > > > >See "Open discussion", and the "Note" at the end: "There aren't a lot > >of rules, but that is one of them: no calls for restricted > >discussion. It's a discussion list, not a less-discussion list." > > > >In other words, NO TOPIC-COPS! > > > > From a recent post, Robert's reply to Clif: > > > > > > > >>>Just a thought to further take this list into a land far away from > >>>renewable energy sources. > >>> > >>> > >> Some of these issues may seem tangential at first. Close > >>examination, however, will reveal how energy use, foreign policy, > >>religious perspective, racism and many other "isms" blend to create > >>the overall milieu in which the topic of biofuels exist. We who have > >>been here for any length of time agree by consensus that which is > >>deserving of discussion and that which is not. It's remarkably self > >>regulating, for the most part. > >> > >> > > > >Yes it is, for the most part. Once again, nobody's forcing anyone to > >read anything they don't want to read, messages have subject titles > >after all. What does it amount to anyway? "You're only allowed to > >talk about what **I** want to talk about"? Usually it's either that > >or a poorly disguised demand for censorship. Or a complaint that > >there isn't any censorship, which looks like Duff's case. Not that > >he'd call it censorship. > > > >Ho-hum. > > > >Anyway, the rule is enforced. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Keith Addison > >Journey to Forever > >KYOTO Pref., Japan > >http://journeytoforever.org/ > >Biofuel list owner > > > > > > > > > >>--- Sean Michael Dargan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hello Cliff, <snip> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
