-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED],Internet writes:
>
>Those who post on these
>boards and claim to be adult enough to discuss various theories in a
>mature
>manner should have vocabularies large enough not to need graphic detailed
>descriptions of all manner of criminal behavior and sexual abberations.
Personally, I wasn't offended. Words are only words. They don't bother me.
But there are a great many people who read this list who are offended by
this sort of description. Personally, I think they're being silly. But be
that as it may, what I think is not what matters here. Neither is what
they think. What matters is what we think. If we collectively agree to try
not to offend gratuitously, we'll all get along better. There are some
things we say, and need to say, here that are going to offend anyway
because they speak to fundamental philosophical and religious differences.
These things should not go unsaid simply because saying them would offend
some people. This would be tyranny. But even they can be stated in ways
that make it clear that we respect each other's differences and are
willing overlook them in the context of this list. It behooves us all to
do so because each of us, even those who are bitter enemies, stand to gain
and to learn from at least some of what each other post. So let's be
polite, even if we don't mean it. We'll all profit if we do.
But this story was not one of those cases. This story was disruptive,
nothing more, nothing less. Was this intentional? Draw your own
conclusions. The story was simply uncalled for, particularly in the form
it was presented. For one thing, it was off topic. The author alluded to a
cover up. A story about the cover up would have been on topic. But the
story wasn't about the cover up. It was about the deeds themselves. This
makes it off topic. This list is not about child abuse. It's about
conspiracy. The story was not about conspiracy. It was about child abuse.
Therefore it didn't belong here. It belonged on a list about child abuse.
The wording was flat out guaranteed to offend some people here. It did.
Inevitably, it then soaked up bandwidth, time and attention that otherwise
would have been devoted to conspiracy. Was this intentional? Draw your own
conclusions.
Whether they are the product of intention or not, disruptive and
distracting posts are bad for the list, the listers, the discussion, and
conspiracy research. Many of us who read this list in order to be exposed
to news and history we might otherwise overlook. This stuff gets in the
way. Perhaps we should ask ourselves who it is who gains most by getting
in our way. It would certainly help us draw our conclusions about the
possible role of intent in such postings.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
