Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Prohibition isn't going to work unless we get a moderator, is that what we
> want to do? That being said, we can, as individuals, ignore inflammatory
> rhetoric and avoid inciting it. Now I know you're all saying look who is
> calling the kettle black, and you're right, I'm as guilty as anyone, but I am
> going to make a concerted effort to avoid responding to remarks I find
> particularly insulting or inflammatory. I think if most of us do this, The
> hostile debates will expire due to lack of interest.
I find when I get worked up about something (usually at work) I set my mailer to
"send later" instead of "send". My reply gets written with all the outrage and
anguish I feel at the time, then sits in my outbox for a while. When I go to send
the messages in my outbox, I reread them and and find that they either don't
really need sending at all, or else they need editing first. The most common thing
is seeing the inflammatory rhetoric Doug refers to and feeling the need to "set
that person straight", but of course ignoring it is the best course of action.
You can't leave out politics - where do you draw the line? Discussions on missile
shields and environment/energy are only peripherally political anyway, and are
core to this gathering of forward-looking people. Our common interest is the
possible futures we face...that's what SF and Brin are all about.
This is my (longwinded) Nay vote...
Russell C.
