Everyone -- There's been far too much personal name-calling on the forum lately. Especially the use of the word "condescending." (And to emphasize, this applies to more than one person!) You can rebut someone's argument without calling them names or characterizing their tone. Several list members who have crossed the line have been warned -- I've lightened up on people responding after being provoked, but I want to remind everyone that just because someone crosses the line doesn't mean you get to. I don't want to step on the substantive differences on these issues. I do want to keep us from becoming a free-flowing bile-fest. If you feel someone has been condescending, or whatever, tell them directly. Otherwise, discuss the substantive issues on the entire list. I don't usually call out specific examples, but I'm going to in this case. (To the individuals involved: if I haven't warned you already, you won't be. But I feel the need to be clear here.) Russell Peterson's original NRP participation post was pointed, but well within our list rules. Annie Young's response, especially her last paragraph that challenged Russell's involvement, his posting frequency, and what he does or doesn't do in front of a computer, was presumptuous and far too personal, and clearly violated the list rules. Wade Russell's post, while containing substantive points, also continued the personal vitrol and violated list rules. The debate is over whether NRP is too exclusive -- that's a good and important one to have. But stamping your feet, hurling invective, and pretending you can read the minds of those you disagree with is LAME and has no place here. It is possible to passionately defend your position and emphatically criticize other positions without getting personal. Everyone, please try it, or you will be asked to leave the list. David Brauer List manager, Mpls-issues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
