--------------563D3E6B387905D8858E4770
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Listmembers:
Recently Barb Pattereson, requested that a discussion on the subject of
abortion and fetal research be cut short. Barb and I have exchanged
e-mail on the broader issue of the limits of the list. She has asked
me to bring the issue to the group for discussion and I think I can best
do that by excerpting our exchange.
Barbara Patterson wrote:
"Let's call halt to the pro life / pro choice discussion.
Each side
believes deeply that it is the 'right' side. We can agree
to disagree on
that topic. Barb "
I replied:
"Dear Barb, I am concerned about the cutting off of
discussion...(re abortion). My first instinct was to leave
the issue drop...With my sincere respect and appreciation of
you, your viewpoints and all the work you have done it would
be easier not to object especially since. But, I am
concerned about any cutting off of legitimate debate no matter
how controversial, as long as it is civil, generally
respectful of others opinions, not libelous or slanderous,
isn't primarily commercial in nature and pertains to PD in
some way . I recognize that you were trying to avoid discord
and hurt feelings but serious issues often have well-meaning,
intelligent people at odds. We can agree to disagree but
then we give up the opportunity to grow and learn from
persons with whom we share a powerful common goal. Let me
suggest that we bring to the whole list as a issue the
question of the parameters of debate and when and how it
should be cut off. ...Charlie "Barb,
Barbara Patterson wrote:
Hi, Charlie. .... The only reason I suggested we stop the
discussion of pro choice/life is to prevent a flame war. It
really is a hot topic! ... I certainly don't feel that my
word and my word alone is law on the list. The list means
too much to too many people for me to feel that I can dictate
anything. It might be a good thing, as you say, to put the
issue to the entire list for their feedback. Would you like
to do it? With my consent/approval or whatever. :) ... Barb
I replied:
You confirmed what I had inferred that you wanted to prevent a
flame war. Flaming has no place on this list. If ever my
posts approach "flames" I expect you and the group to take me
to task for it .Name calling serves no
purpose.You never have been dictatorial in your approach to
the list and it surprised me that you were "aborting" (sorry
I couldn't resist) discussion. Its just that because of our
respect for you and your position," When Barb Patterson talks
everybody listens! " and what you say as a suggestion is heard
as an edict. The ultimate responsibility for the list is yours
as "the owner" and therefore it is appropriate you have the
final say. You graciously have always been open and rarely
have exercised dictatorial control ( The one time I remember
was throwing off a deceptive commercial interest and that was
in consultation with group members). Your leadership and
openness is appreciated. ...Charlie Meyer
OK Now LIST WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LIMITS OF DEBATE ON THIS LIST SHOULD
BE AND HOW SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED?
Charlie Meyer
--------------563D3E6B387905D8858E4770
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Listmembers:
<p>Recently Barb Pattereson, requested that a discussion on the subject
of abortion and fetal research be cut short. Barb and I have exchanged
e-mail on the broader issue of the limits of the list. She
has asked me to bring the issue to the group for discussion and I think
I can best do that by excerpting our exchange.
<br>
<blockquote><i>Barbara Patterson wrote:</i>
<p><i> "Let's call halt to the pro life / pro choice discussion.
Each side</i>
<br><i> believes deeply that it is the 'right' side. We can
agree to disagree on</i>
<br><i> that topic. Barb "</i>
<p><i>I replied:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>"Dear Barb, I am concerned about the cutting off of discussion...(re
abortion). My first instinct was to leave the issue drop...With my
sincere respect and appreciation of you, your viewpoints and all the work
you have done it would be easier not to object especially since.
But, I am concerned about any cutting off of legitimate debate no
matter how controversial, as long as it is civil, generally respectful
of others opinions, not libelous or slanderous, isn't primarily
commercial in nature and pertains to PD in some way . I recognize that
you were trying to avoid discord and hurt feelings but serious issues often
have well-meaning, intelligent people at odds. We can agree
to disagree but then we give up the opportunity to grow and learn from
persons with whom we share a powerful common goal. Let me suggest
that we bring to the whole list as a issue the question of the parameters
of debate and when and how it should be cut off. ...Charlie "Barb,</i>
<p><i>Barbara Patterson wrote:</i>
<br><i> Hi, Charlie. .... The only reason I
suggested we stop the discussion of pro choice/life is to prevent a flame
war. It really is a hot topic! ... I certainly don't
feel that my word and my word alone is law on the list. The
list means too much to too many people for me to feel that I can
dictate anything. It might be a good thing, as you say, to put the
issue to the entire list for their feedback. Would you like to do
it? With my consent/approval or whatever. :) ... Barb</i>
<p><i>I replied:</i>
<p><i>You confirmed what I had inferred that you wanted to prevent a flame
war. Flaming has no place on this list. If ever my posts approach
"flames" I expect you and the group to take me to task for it .Name
calling serves no</i>
<br><i>purpose.You never have been dictatorial in your approach to the
list and it surprised me that you were "aborting" (sorry I couldn't
resist) discussion. Its just that because of our respect for you
and your position," <b>When Barb Patterson talks everybody listens! "</b>
and what you say as a suggestion is heard as an edict. The ultimate responsibility
for the list is yours as "the owner" and therefore it is appropriate you
have the final say. You graciously have always been open and rarely
have exercised dictatorial control ( The one time I remember was throwing
off a deceptive commercial interest and that was in consultation with group
members). Your leadership and openness is appreciated. ...Charlie
Meyer</i>
<br> </blockquote>
OK Now LIST <b>WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LIMITS OF DEBATE ON THIS LIST
SHOULD BE AND HOW SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED?</b>
<p>Charlie Meyer</html>
--------------563D3E6B387905D8858E4770--
