-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Lets stop beating this dead horse. There is NO content filter on this
> list.
Frank,
I apologize for not looking at the headers more carefully, and responding too
quickly; partly I was trying to determine what the content filter was
keying-on. The responses were meant to be amusing, not entirely serious,
except for the comments on content filtering on a list, which apparently are
not applicable here. It now appears that the person who posted the initial
request, that initiated the thread, installed the filter which would now block
his own post.
One of the nice features of this list so far has been the low volume and the
generally civilized nature of the list. Some people are a little
overly-sensitive (as I myself was to the content filter issue) to react to one
passing political reference, but I understand how these can snowball.
--------------------------------------------------
Apologies made, I still think that the point of my initial post is valid. If
you are losing people from the list because they do not want to see responses
to /requests/ for sources of equipment or services, because they are posted by
the source, then that seems overly sensitive to me. Arbitrarily setting
policy to satisfy such people in order to maintain list size seems wrong too.
I think it's equally useful to see who is doing what locally as to see who
needs what. If and when this gets out of hand then other policies can be
considered.
Others on the list probably have more of a handle on how to do this, but
additional channels for administrative issues such as this discussion, for
services and equipment requests, similar to the announce channel the group
already has would be one option. Another would be a maintained FAQ that would
contain a local sources section. The voluntary tag idea seemed more
appropriate given the low volume, and the as yet nonexistent 'spam' problem.
Smile, growing pains indicate growth :)
- --
Tom Farrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/38F56384 04B6DBF6448BB3AECE99 BBEB1286954738F56384
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE+Xr+3EoaVRzj1Y4QRAkJOAJ4yS9Xs5ZvTBuMrrJ87CdNAFOjJ0wCeIXj0
6JN5bNVEEbuKCKoQvsGZuzA=
=xBL/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
