 |
 |
On 6 Aug 99 at 14:20, Kathrynne Holden, MS,RD wrote: > Janet, I think Version C is an improvement. However, it still states an > absolute that may not be true for all: > > "Listmembers are here to share their vulnerabilities" > > Actually, I would think that information exchange (PIE = Parkinson > Information Exchange) is the primary reason listmembers are here; some > may not wish to share vulnerabilities at all. > > As for the first sentence, > > "If a member of this list persists in unwelcome and unsolicited > communication involving personal attacks on another listmember, > the offender's subscription may be subject to termination." > > -- if Barb, you and others feel it's necessary, so be it. To me, it > seems be micromanaging. I much preferred the list run exactly as Barb > has done from the start. Every list I belong to (and there are many) has > all the same problems as this one, including scammers, spammers, flamers > and quacks. They invariably cause unpleasantness and fill up mailboxes > with a volume of responses. I don't think it's possible to avoid that, > human nature being what it is. However, Barb has always dealt with > isolated problems smoothly and well, and my personal preference would be > to continue that without change. I feel that the nature and tone of the > list is shifting in undesirable ways. > > My opinions are my own, however, and may not reflect those of the > majority. > Best regards, > Kathrynne > > Kathrynne, I'm in total agreement with the above and for the most part I tend to agree with the moderates (Charlie, Judith, certainly Dennis, you know who you are....). I don't have a problem at all with anyone e-mailing me publicly or privately at any time and flogging me for being even offbase. I do have a problem with absolutes.... murray [log in to unmask]