Chip's offlist fight with listadmin ended well for all concerned,
IMHO, I'm glad Chip agrees. Definitely offlist stuff, the list wasn't
deprived of anything. Raking up old coals isn't always a good idea,
and this would just have been a distraction or worse.
I think there's a lot of offlisting
I like the way this list works -- a few of my other sustainability
lists it's very easy to get off-topic (try discussing the political
ramifications or drivers behind a sustainbility issue...) and then the
moderator steps in and tells you to take it elsewhere. Here it seems
like there is no
Greetings,
I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I did say
I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in
past history and is happening today by the corporate world.
I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes
Hello Kim
Greetings,
I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well.
I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and
dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read
quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal
her way
I just wanted to chime in here.Keith wrote: "It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up."It's alsotoo commonto see a reactionary restriction of _expression_, screening all posts
Rudtard Kipling is rolling is his grave but William Easterly probably
approves of pretty much everything you've said.
Michael Redler wrote:
I just wanted to chime in here.
Keith wrote:
It reached a stage here where the list would not have
survived unless we'd formulated the rules,
Michael Redler wrote:
I just wanted to chime in here.
Keith wrote:
It reached a stage here where the list would not have
survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there,
we didn't just make them up.
It's also too common to see a reactionary
Chip wrote: "I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate..."If all posts on that thread were screened, I disagree with your assessment. However, I agree with subsequent screening/deleting after the list members had a chance to read and dissent to the
I hope that too much restriction does not take place because I
learn a lot from reading reactions to each other's statements. It
helps me clarify my own thinking by watching people try to help
others clarify and defend their positions. I want to understand
why people feel they way they do.
Yes, you are correct about my position in the whole matter. However Hakan,
this is exactly my point. This is EXACTLY why I think the UN is using our
el-presidante' for it's own purposes.
Look at it this way. You are correct in your conclusion that I thought
that US had the right to set a
I cann't help I have to react. To my 'human' feeling, somne strange
thinking below by Curtis.
1) statement: the UN is using our el-presidante' for it's own purposes.??
As I understand it so far the UN NEVER said the US of A can NOT attack
Iraq. The 'privalege' of starting a war is
11 matches
Mail list logo