On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 12:28 -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> Marcel,
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think you completely missed the point.
> 
> The main problem is that there is TOO MUCH policing going on, of the wrong 
> kind. 

In your opinion. In my opinion, as one of the co-admins, and as
evidenced by this and other similar threads in the past few days, there
hasn't been ENOUGH policing.

> Bob appears to be censoring content solely based on his personal 
> interpretation of what is appropriate, and what isn't. So 
> namecalling/bullying is allowed, yet topics that have been allowed in the 
> past and more often result in coherent intelligent discussions, are not.

You are requesting 100% perfect consistency in the enforcement of rules
that are based on purely subjective criteria. This is 100% impossible.

Have certain topics been allowed before that aren't now? 100%
absolutely. What is kosher on this list very much depends on how much it
disrupts the list. 

There are a variety of topics that in the past didn't seem to inflame,
so they were permitted. Times, and people, change and there are
certainly topics these days that do now inflame, and therefore are dealt
with. On the other hand there are surely some topics that are more
tolerated these days then in the past, for similar reasons.

Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, there is NO line in the sand
as to what is allowed and what isn't. Our "rules" as stated should be
treated as GUIDELINES, not absolutes. Yes, they are open to
interpretation by the admin in question; this is what happens when
subjective criteria are used.

FWIW, I agree with Bob's actions. 

Now, to everyone involved, please take a moment and cool off before
sending a response to whomever you feel slighted, or take it offline if
you must. These threads, in their current form no longer belong on the
PICLIST.

Thanks, TTYL

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