At 07:41 AM 7/6/2001 -0700, Brian Baylis wrote:
>As an adult, I have learned to reason and have developed a certain sense
>of right and wrong and the ability to control myself while still
>engageing in stimulating (and sometimes controversial) discussions. I
>will also dish back what someone else dishes out up to a point, if they
>want to play ball that way. It's part of what makes me feel alive as
>opposed to living a life on a diet of "milk toast". If others had the
>courage to do the same while still manintaing "a reasonable" amount of
>civility, and if people had the courage to call offenders to the carpet
>for stepping out of bounds or not playing fairly, I think we could all
>get along while still haveing a stimulating atmosphere. Am I all wet?
No, you're a Libertarian. I am too, in principle, and was actually one of the ten or so people who voted for Harry Brown last round. Remember Harry? The problem with Libertarianism, though, is that it assumes a level of maturity in the citizenry that the evidence doesn't support. In other words, we're bottle fed, and as a society would have a hard time if the bottle suddenly dried up. We count on structure to guide us.
This has what to do with the CR list? Everything! The "no rules" ethos would work well if everyone played fair (assuming we all agree on what fair is, which we don't). The problem here, as everywhere else is that one bad apple, or a few, spoil it for all. I'm not suggesting there is much demographic crossover between CR and rec.bike, but check out rec.bike to see what the least-common-denominator life is like these days. I'll take your word for what you find; I quit looking.
So, I agree with you in principle, which is to say I agree the CR list would need no boundaries as set by Dale if the rest of us set them for ourselves just as well. We don't, and we never will.
Cheers,
Jeff Slotkin
TheLocalSpoke
Goose Creek, SC