>> As you are entitled to. About 20 people actively don't seem to.

> Yes, that's human nature.  When someone makes a statement you feel 
> strongly
> about, you have the urge to respond, whether the forum is 
> appropriate or
> not.

>> Multiply that by the (unknown & variable ) silent/lurker ratio.

> And how do you know those silent lurkers weren't all grinding their 
> teeth
> waiting for yet another policital onslought to the PIClist to 
> finally pass
> (like I was doing)?

I don't KNOW that of course, But, with respect, that's entirely 
orthogonal to what I was saying.
I was specifically noting that, for each one who was interested and 
posting, there would be N who were interested and not posting. There 
will also be M teeth-grinders (0.05 < M < ???), but that's another 
issue.

>> the point of posting this ...

> ... Now that you're proudly repeating it

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound 'proud' about it. Was trying to explain 
the motivation.

> .. Very likely the word spread even faster near the event
> where people were in a position to be useful "at an early stage". 
> There was
> absolutely no reason to broadcast this on the PIClist.  The logic 
> for that
> is so absurd ...

I disagree. And so, *we* disagree. If you read carefully what I said 
you may perhaps see my point. I didn't want to wave it too violently. 
But it seemed, and still seems to me, to have been worth doing. We 
differ.

At the time I posted there were still people dying, or not, in London.

> that I see this as just another excuse to once again have a
> political discussion on the PIClist.

Absolutely not the intention.
But where it has gone was well within the realm of probability.
Note that such things do not HAVE to enter the realm of the political. 
Unless you are asserting that bombing the London underground can only 
be seen as a form of political expression and not viewed in any other 
capacity.

> And the result should have been no
> surprise to you either.  It's exactly what I assumed would happen 
> when I
> read your original post.

It's exactly what I assumed COULD happen. I presaged that in my 
original post and then left it to others to decide how to deal with it 
responsibly. The risk, to me, seemed worth the benefit. Some obviously 
completely overlook or dismiss the benefits.

> Yes, I have opinions about terrorism, democracy, and forms of 
> government
> too, but I'm not going to impose them on people who came here to 
> talk about
> PICs and related technology.

However, OT is NOT intended to be about any of those topics, as you 
know. I wouldn't dream of raising such ideas on the [PIC] thread, or 
even on my beloved [EE] thread, where technology posts of any sort are 
intended to be. The [OT] tag is intended for not-PIC, 
not-Electrical_Engineering, not-technology, as I imagine you know. 
This may be further OT than some OT threads, but I imagine that eg 
Scott Dattalo is blissfully unaware of it. And even Bob Blick is 
probably blissfully unperturbed about all this as well.







                Russell McMahon 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist