>From John Berry: My follow-up thoughts placed between yours:
> 3 lists, that would just be unmanageable. Well... that is what is being questioned here. Would it really? I dunnno. Mr. Beaty, can you let us know your thoughts on the matter? > Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed > as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't > causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off > topic subject it ought to go to B. >From what I have seen it can be difficult at times to determine precisely what is "...strictly on topic" and more to the point, what isn't. You say po-tay-toe... I say pa-tau-toe. > Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill. Indeed, this is a legitimate concern of mine as well. I have no desire to fleece the pocket of Mr. Beaty anymore than we have already done so. I also don't want to make any more maintenance work for Bill to manage either. I was hoping that the creation of a [VoT] group might be, more or less, an automated procedure. I could be wrong on this however. > Anyway if a political portion of an on topic post causes > the entire post needing to be posted to a different list > that's a mess too. It's especially a mess if that means willing participants must fend their way through a cesspool of [VoB] vitrol. Personally, I don't think that is fair choice. It's almost a form of prejudice... go to the back of the bus. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
