Every list I'm on has gone through this same struggle - is the war relevant to our list? Should listmembers be allowed to take up this issue? I don't feel like I have an answer to that question that isn't moderated by a feeling that both sides have some legitimate points to make. However, the following occurs to me: a.) The Lancet, NEJM, BMJ etc. all contain articles about driving safety, gun control, battered women, teen suicide, class differences etc. and how they impact death rates and health. It isn't much of a reach to say that war and our position to affect that war is a crucial issue affecting people's health. Right now it is said by most international aid agencies that millions of Afghanis will starve to death if the U.S. doesn't stop bombing now - this is not an issue without relevance to the medical community. b.) On the other hand, there is a place and time for everything - None of the journals mentioned above focus solely on such issues; they maintain a balance. c.) I think it is unfair for listmembers to say "No more conversation on this topic" and then throw out deliberately provocative comments and not expect a response. If you really believe in "no more conversation" - then make no more comments other than expressing that point - otherwise you invite retort. d.) One reason to NOT take all such conversation off-list is this. In my experience, some of my own changes - when someone has truly turned my viewpoint around - came when a person I knew made comments in an environment of respect. One problem with elists started up solely to discuss the war etc., is that people don't know each and tend to shout. Learning how to have a respectful conversation with colleagues - while at times painful and difficult - can be productive. e.) There are any number of topics on elists in which I see the subject header and I simply hit delete. Not out of anger or dismay - I simply have different interests that may or may not coincide with those posted. What is wrong with doing the same for this topic? jeanne lenzer