At 08:19 AM 2/1/02, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >(b) listowners should be � semi-lurkers [who don�t >get too much involved in discussions] are better >for the job
I disagree. One of the things that made me uncomfortable about the incident we are discussing is that the "warning" [or whatever it was] to John was issued by someone whose name had not appeared in the list of posters on the list in over 4 months, and only half-a-dozen times in all of 2001: it reminded me too much of experiences I have had with "absentee landlords," etc. IMBFHDO, the listowner(s) should be "one of us." If the concern is that a listowner who is a frequent participant may be too involved in a contentious discussion to be objective, then the rules should perhaps say that censuring or banning someone from the list requires a unanimous vote of the listowners, or at least a majority vote in addition to multiple requests from the rank and file. YMMV. (Note: This is not a criticism of Eileen. I understand her situation and the need to have a listowner at Cornell. And if I haven't said it, a big "Thank you!" to her for doing it. This is just a comment on the way things appeared from this side.) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam� God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
