> If ProFox can learn similarly, there is hope. No, a thousand times no, not > in the institution of "thought police", but in another institution: the jury > of peers system. > Why make it so complicated? There is a better institution, the lack of institution. You'll sometimes not agree with this imaginary "jury of peers", so I have something that will make you happier. The "jury of one peer", you,. I propose that YOU take responsibility over what you read, and filter yourself the people you don't deem worthy of your attention. It would work like a JoP, you put on your wig, you hammer on your own table asking for silence in your court, and you talk to yourself about the merits of each one of us, then you impart "justice" and filter whomever where found "guilty". How about that? Isn't it easier? And a lot less hassle? And everybody as satisfied as they please? Just one cost, YOU have to take responsibility.
-------------------------------------- I view ProFox as a group of professionals with the purpose of advancing our lot, which ranges from computer programming in general to VFP in particular. Take any professional forum, and ask yourself if that forum would allow anyone who wants to walk in off the street unlimited access to the podium. This simply wouldn't be allowed in real life meetings. Okay, these are "virtual" meetings, with new rules, and they can kind of shape themselves. All well and good, but I'm saying that even in this new world there comes a point where enough is enough, that the group has to require a certain standard of professionalism to maintain it's authenticity, otherwise it becomes just another playground for chatterboxes, which subtracts from it's purpose. I'm saying that if people are called to task to be professional, most will rise to the challenge, but if people sit mute or put their little personal blindfolds on, they are hurting rather then helping the group as a whole. -------------------------------------- Apart from all this, THIS thread is completely OT, so you are in violation of the "rules" of the list. I'm not marking it OT because if you are not subscribed to OT then you won't read it, you do that (mark it OT). But it's ironic that someone protesting against off topic conversation will break this rule in his post (I'm referring to the OP). ----------------------------------------------- You're saying that a discussion on the purpose of the list should not take place on the list. Is that logical? Bill _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
