Good suggestion. I'll delete any future discussions of this. It's enough.
Mark
At 02:00 PM 12/23/2007, you wrote:
>no person's judgement is infallible. it's just a matter of conforming
>to executive decisions out of the reach of the individual member's
>influence, whether the decisions are bad or not. it seems to me that
>we're being given two options: (a) agree with the JG-decision based on
>our own observations on the situation -- which are EXTREMELY limited &
>secret at least to me, or (b) agree with the JG-decision without
>question or observation, based on PAST executive decisions. both sound
>like crap.
>
>especially when the person who's banning is being discussed was of a
>prickly nature; I can easily imagine some people having negative bias
>towards his darkly humorous sharpness, and ruling over the opinions of
>people like myself who found him exciting & talented, who added to
>this list an impression of excitement & talent. getting rid of prickly
>people is a method of sanitisation. if people want a sanitised list,
>my opinion is that they can damn well sanitise it themselves by
>deleting all unwanted messages and taking a chill pill. I'm fed up
>with whiners whining about whiners -- at least JG whined poetically,
>entertainingly, with harmless freedom. the way I see it, a ban is an
>end-all to whining, just by an executive whiner.
>
>it takes a lot of provocation to get banned. well, it takes a lot of
>provocation to change ways of thinking & responding.
>
>KS
>
>On 23/12/2007, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I'm with Chris on this. Given her history as list manager, there's no
> > reason to doubt Anny's judgment, and it seems clear that there's b/c
> > communication behind the decision that she can't reveal for reasons
> > of confidentiality. Very few poeple have been removed from the
> > list--it takes a lot of provocation to earn that distinction.
> >
> > Note that only a very few voices are involved in this discussion.
> > Best on to other things.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > At 12:59 PM 12/23/2007, you wrote:
> > ><snip>
> > >and that you'd try so desperately to not answer The Question so many of us
> > >have straightforwardly asked you for. [JP]
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >Judy and others:
> > >
> > >It seems to me that you dislike what has been done, not that
> you're asking a
> > >question.
> > >
> > >The action you now seek, the 'answer' you'd prefer, would certainly
> > >satisfy some; but it would thereby dissatisfy others who would then want
> > >their 'question' answered... And so on, like Swift's fleas.
> > >
> > >Concentrating upon personalised issues of this sort throttles real
> > >discussion (about poetry and the ETCs) in favour of futile and rebarbative
> > >exchanges about perceived scandals and email hanging chads.
> Peter Cudmore's
> > >mother put it both earlier than I did and much better, but my
> point is hers
> > >in its essence.
> > >
> > >There are just three realistic options, in other words, and only those
> > >three: (a) get used to the action taken, let the 'question' drop and
> > >contribute to the List in ways that may attract both new and
> former members;
> > >(b) leave the List, or else (c) destroy it from within.
> > >
> > >I hope you will choose the first.
> > >
> > >CW
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >'The Question
> > >has destroyed you.'
> > >(Neruda)
> >
|