On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 07:15:42PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Since you are frank, let me be. As far as I can tell, help from you > would be: "you are all so stupid; do it my way." Can you see why > others might not see such actions as being helpful?
This argument would have a chance of success if I were the only one excluded from the discussions of the future of the list. Since I'm not the only one, your argument does not make a lot of sense. Also, do you think you are stupid? I don't. I never said you were. If you read that into my words, then you are making a mistake, but that is your perogative. > From what I gleamed from your posts, you seem to be opposed to the > ideas of compromise and cooperation. No. I am opposed to trying to force something on others. Cooperation is good, but it should be voluntary. Forced cooperation is not cooperation. > Freedom of speech does not mean that every forum must be totally > unregulated. Free speech means that anyone may say what they like. Regulation takes away freedom of speech, so speech is less free. Some regulation may be desirable in some situations, but don't confuse it for anything but what it is -- a restriction on free speech. Maybe a useful restriction, but a restriction nonetheless. I haven't argued that there should be absolutely no regulation, but the details of what regulation are and are not useful is not something I want to get into now. > Speaking of freedom of speech, why can't people talk to each other without > your approval? Its not as though there is a common property that folks > will control. Nick can get help and advise from whomever he wishes to ask. They can. But it is a mistake to have organized discussions about the future of the list without involving the entire list. You insist on making this a personal issue of "my approval", and it is not. To use your vaunted "sampling techniques" (by the way, speaking of rude, "come on erik, you know sampling theory"), several people came forward to say they don't think the future list should be discussed in secret. > Finally, I've been both a member and an elder in the Presbyterian > church, which has had a representative government for longer than the > United States. I've been on session for the last two years, and like > the idea of how we give a task to a committee to thrash out and not do > everything as a committee of the whole. Naturally, the task is not mentioned to anyone else on the committee, and the committee is convened in secret, and only a few others are told about it. > Indeed, let me make a suggestion off the top of my head. Why don't > you get together with like minded people and put together a proposed > setup for the new home of Brin-L. It is much better to discuss it with everyone on the Brin list. It is not necessary to "get together", everyone who should have input on it is already here. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
