John Lee wrote:
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda
(as
someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall that
you
*posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list
headed
"What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not
one
in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of affairs.
-- Jonel
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
I thought the final sentence of Jonel's email made it clear she (he?) approves of the present situation, i.e. Marc not being moderated.
Johnleemk
OK. But he calls it "remarkable looseness" that Marc has not been moderated?