Hi Cornelius >Hey guys, why the grief? I don't like the idea that only the liberal view >point is acceptable in this discussion group
I also don't like that idea. If anybody thinks that they've got it wrong. >but what really upsets me is >that we waste so much air time on politics when I want to learn about fuels. >I disagree with much of the political liberal view point expressed here but I >do not condemn the author. I hope to read more about fuels and less about >opinions of a political nature. "Politics", "political liberal view point", "opinions of a political nature" - this is just labelling, it's specious, and it says more about the labeller than the labelled. What strikes me about these recurrent objections is that they all seem to be the same. They don't try to counter the information they're objecting to with contrary information, they don't present anything resembling a case or any foundation for their view that it's off-topic, they just sling labels at it. Then they say, "Let's get back to talking about fuels." The opposing view is that the discussion they're objecting to IS about fuels. It's really an argument between a broad definition of the context of biofuels and a narrow one. It's not a very sensible argument. Narrowing the discussion might satisfy some but would deprive others. Keeping it broad deprives nobody, and nobody's forcing anybody to read anything they don't want to read. (Mention is made of the Delete button option.) So I won't narrow it. If you think there are more important considerations that should override this view, please tell me about them. Also, keeping it narrow means defining what's on-topic and what's not. Do you think you could do that without risk of excluding valuable and on-topic discussion? Some of the guys were talking about the wonders of New Zealand honey the other day, clearly off-topic, but they're sensible and didn't push it too far. So fine, honey's off-topic, put it on the banned list. (Why didn't you object to that, by the way? - it wasn't about fuels.) Er, but before you ban it, do an archive search and you'll find discussion on using honey as a feedstock for ethanol. So maybe you could define it as "off-topic, unless it's on-topic"? And so on and on. Anyway, don't be deterred, go on, make your list. When you've finished it, please persuade the membership to accept your definitions. Don't be surprised when people start yelling at you: "Stop wasting time with all this off-topic political BS, let's get back to biofuels!" It's you who's being political. You want to make rules and impose them on people who demonstrably don't need them. You want to restrict everyone here to your view, whether or not they agree with it. You want to impose your limited definitions on a large group with a vast variety of backgrounds, interests, cultures, nations, and spheres of operation, in a vital and rapidly developing field that is as yet relatively undefined - we here are among those helping to define it. Restrictive rules and narrow definitions will hardly help. There are 645 of us here at the moment. I wouldn't propose that I know better than any of them, and even less so than all of them - their collective knowledge and wisdom is most impressive. You seem to think someone decides what's acceptable and not acceptable here - you disagree and think it should be you. Actually nobody decides, everybody decides. They're sensible people, they make their own decisions. It works very well. It's called democracy. I like it! There you are Cornelius - a genuine opinion of a political nature for you! Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ >Cornelius A. Van Milligen >Kentucky Enrichment Inc >byproduct processors Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
