Not censorship, just common sense Ray. I don't mind. The list owners have a
job judging what is and what is not fit for the list. I was concerned about
the discussion drifting off into the mire of evolutionary biology, which I
have been known to do.
sb

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, August 07, 1999 2:21 PM
Subject: I don't understand


Dear list-owners,

The last couple of posts from Steven Bissell have inferred that he is being
limited in the content of his  messages.

I hope this is not the case.  But if so, it seems to me that the list-owners
owe us participants an explanation - perhaps I missed it.  Certainly you own
the list and can establish the rules.  But, it seems to me that, if there is
an infraction of those rules, we should be informed of the basis for that
conclusion.

In the last post, Steven's language suggested that he was being required to
demonstrate how his posts relate to EE.  Now I am not a competent ethicist,
but it is my understanding that there are some who suggest that
biology/evolution have some bearing on environmental ethics.  Certainly, it
seems to me that an environmental ethics group would want the benefit of
input from a professional wildlife biology/genetics person on the
environmental issues under discussion.

To me, this is in no way comparable to the digressions that have occured in
the past.

In short, I smell censorship.  And I don't like it.

In my view, the list-owners owe us an explanation and *justification* for
censorship if it is occurring.  And, we should have an opportunity to debate
that issue.

Sincerely and respectfully, I am

Ray Lanier  ([log in to unmask])
                  P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, Florida  USA  32667






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%