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