Grudgingly have to admit a point here.
Unless a list-owner is backed by virtually all his subscribers,
his list can get dragged into for-profit policy questions. It is too bad
if individuals interested in Tibetan music cannot close themselves to
advertizements. To prevent their discussions getting infilterated; to not
have to face the the problem of getting quoted somewhere. Sheesh.
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 10:07:13PM, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
<snip>
> > what difference would it make
> > to you if they did make money on it? You are not diminished by their
> > actions unless perhaps an apparent association takes place between you and
> > something you wish not to be associated.
>
> But I am. My express wish to preserve an enterprise as a non-profit
> entity is being ignored. I consider this to constitute tangible harm,
> and have no reservations about seeking tangible compensation for it,
> should that become necessary.
Whether I agree with this above statement completely, the first
sentence is a telling one. The right to have a non-profit
activity (peaceful picnics eg) without commercial interests coming
along... easily gets overrun.
I'd hope the wall-street people who go to church don't want
blinking quotes displayed by the platform ... what do they call
that place?... the alter.
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
- - -
- Paul
To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.
: - Oliver Wendell Holmes :
:*nine_stories*,salinger=****=djembes................................:
