 |
 |
My letter to Barbara Mallut (vide infra) was just a personnal note expressing my view of these lists. Were this to be submitted as a professional note to a journal, I could see it being analytically shredded to pieces by an hostile reviewer. I really think this was uncalled for, and I would call this 'flaming' and I resent it. Michel janet paterson wrote: > hi all > > At 00:01 1999/08/28 -0400, michel wrote, in part: > >The Sparkle extension of this program aims for the same goal: to > >allow free expression for our community. This charge was assumed > >by three volunteers who believed that the main list was getting > >too crowded with extraneous non PD material... > > 'free expression' for our community > has been 'allowed' all along > i thought > > i don't believe that this list can be 'too crowded' > i believe that the term 'too crowded' > is a personal judgement call based on limited perceptions > > some perceived the list as 'too crowded' at the 500 mark > i have never perceived the list as such > i have no pre-conceived notions of how the list 'should' be > > i don't believe that non-pd material is 'extraneous' > i believe that the term 'extraneous' > is a personal judgement call based on narrow perceptions > > some perceive humour as extraneous > some perceive hobbies as extraneous > some perceive china patterns as extraneous > i have never perceived anything > written in to this list by a genuine listmember as extraneous > i have no pre-conceived notions of what the subject matter 'should' be > > >I agree that 'pigs' were overtaking the main purpose of the list.. > > i don't agree that pigs were 'overtaking' the main purpose of the list > i believe that the term 'overtaking' > is a personal judgement call based on narrow perceptions > > i believe that the subject pigs was considered foolish by some members > i believe that those members are entitled to their opinion > i do not believe that those members' opinions > entitle them to censor the list contents > > >because our people, i.e. PWP and CG, needed to express their joy > >as well as their troubles... > > my point exactly > my hope may be your fear > my joy may be your red flag > does that entitle me to censor your opinion? > does that entitle you to censor mine? > > <But the worse part of that, is that it repelled many newcomers > >who wanted to discuss strictly PD matters, and some old timers > >who could not cope with the inordinate size or number of the E-mail, > >and felt forced to abandon us... > > if you have proof or verification of the stated 'facts' > please share them > > if not, i suggest that your statements are not only false > but negative and inflammatory and awfulizing and catastrophizing > viz the emotional baggage of your words > 'worst' 'repelled' 'inordinate' 'forced' and 'abandon' > > in the past 22 days > there have been 73 list leavers > and there have been 73 list joiners > > i suggest that > there have been 73 different reasons for leaving > and 73 different reasons for joining > > we are individual humans, not lemmings > > we are individuals with complex characters > > i cannot separate hilary's > passion and fight from her humour and her silliness > > i cannot separate ken's > goofiness from his sensitivity and compassion > > i cannot separate john's > 'fantastic' talent from his warmth and his insight > > i wouldn't want to if i could > > categorizing and pigeon-holing > speak to me of a desire for 'control' or 'power' > > however, > i have been learning that > i can control nothing outside of myself > hard lines, that > but a core truth which needs to be acknowledged and accepted > before any genuine growth can take place > > i can control nothing outside of myself > i can control only me > > i am responsible for nothing outside of myself > i am responsible only for me > > janet > > janet paterson > 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset > po box 171, almonte, ontario, canada, K0A 1A0 > a new voice: <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>