RE: [CR]Please Read: New emphasis on proper CR list message sign offs..

(Example: Events)

In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:28:39 -0700
To: Peter Jourdain <>,
From: "Dr. Paul J.Wilson" <>
Subject: RE: [CR]Please Read: New emphasis on proper CR list message sign offs..

Hi Peter,

You stated: "someone poses a view contrary to the prevailing List philosophy...".

I would bet most of us would not object to a contrary view. But, Wahl' was posing a contrary view to the rules created by our Listmaster. These are the very same rules that Wahl agreed to and now apparently opposes.

Perhaps Wahl could direct an "off list" email to our Listmaster if he feels strongly about changing rules. Sending it out to the entire list is a bit of a betrayal, enticing and trolling ostensibly for other support to bring about pressure on our Listmaster to make changes.

Wahl has no business challenging the rules and is out of line.

Sincerely, Paul Paul J. Wilson Temecula, California>>(951) 587-3632, Cell (408) 395-2020, San Jose, California 95124, USA>>(408) 377-1710

At 7:34 AM -0700 3-18-08, Peter Jourdain wrote:
>A couple of points here----
>Firstly, while I agree with the List policies and
>always try to abide by the sign-off rules, there is a
>VAST difference between the amount of information
>decipherable from somebody who has an uncommon name
>and lives in a small town such as Whitewater,
>Wisconsin, than there is from somebody who is named
>Jack Jones and lives in New York City, so that people
>from smaller locales are, de facto, providing much
>more information about themselves than are people from
>major metropolitan areas, where anonymity reigns. I
>understand that is perhaps an unavoidable part of the
>"lay of the land" on the List, and clearly accept that
>fact, but still insist than not everyone is "exposed"
>to the same degree in what is, after all, a permanent
>online archive accessible to the whole wide world.
>Secondly, while Charles Wahl might have expressed his
>thoughts differently, I nevertheless find it
>disappointing that when someone poses a view contrary
>to the prevailing List philosophy, so many people,
>including folks I like and admire, engage in responses
>that include personal attacks, and innuendo that
>amounts to the same. Such lopsided assaults turn the
>List not into a forum for discussion but into
>something akin to a religious cult where anyone who
>has the effrontery to express a contrary view is
>publicly attacked and shunned. I don't think that
>creating such an "uncivil polity" is the intention or
>purpose of the List, but I have seen this kind of
>thing happen a few times this past year.
>Yes, one can say, "Well, he brought it on himself,"
>and respond as one may, but when we mete out such
>severe public punishment it tends to poison the whole
>welcoming atmosphere of the List. Besides, no matter
>how large our self-perceived role on the List might
>ALONE IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE. And so to conjure up, by
>a bombardment of comments, what amounts to a public
>"loyalty oath," is not our right to do.
>Remember that we show our grace and gentlemanliness
>not when we deal with our close allies, but by the way
>in which we engage with those with whom we strongly
>I applaud Dale and the great work that he does, and I
>thank him heartily for this forum.
>Peter Jourdain
>Whitewater, Wisconsin
>US of A
>Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.