On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Bod Notbod<bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote: Um, if there is a reason for a blocking, stating so openly, or even in private would be nice. Um, no. There is a more actual reason underlying that one - that I was embarrassing Cary, and by extension anyone else on functionaries-l or else using private communication that they were being non-responsive. There are several slang substitutes for "non-responsive" in common language. I do not accept "go aways" as substantive responses - particularly when I've taken care to destroy each and every point more legitimate critics have taken the time to outline. That someone should of course have an identity. In the future, when someone is blocked from a list - particularly a seventh-year contributor/editor, who's been earnest in answering each substantive comment, question, or criticism. It doesn't matter. We've established that the "take it elsewhere [unspecified]" argument is entirely invalid, and the "go away" argument we all know is just an extremely large DBAD violation. And of course this violating concept appears to be indemic wherever people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this trend. -Stevertigo