1.  Discussion of government and/or subsidies on this thread is hereby
forbidden on pain of annoying action by at least one admin. If you wan to
discuss the genuine aspects of CFL pricing then doing so in OT MAY be
appropriate.

Neither Vitaliy or Bob should do so ;-)

2. Given that I asked

>
"          As much as I hate to see such interesting discussions terminated,
may
I please suggest that this stop now - as B&V, regardless of why, have
shown a mutual inability to maintain such discussions stably. This is
a no blame Y'all die situation, shoot everyone and move on, take no
prisoners, makes life much simpler, nothing to see here, move along
please, thankyou."
/>

Notwithstanding offlist discussions with several people I'd have really
really really appreciated it if you (Vitaliy) had indeed desisted as
requested, rather than

> ... Just a few points, then I'll "shut up"....

I asked both you and Bob to stop when both had had an essentially equal
albeit brief crack at the subject. I personally have absolutely no problem
with what either of you had said or with the subjet in general. It's the
demonstarted inability of either of you to handle it well when things ramps
up that makes it necessary to stop early. It doesn't even matter if the
'blame" for ramping up is more on one side than the other, or not, as the
case may be. If there is just ONE head-banger in a discussion then the
admins can deal with it. If two people go ballistic it tends to spread
flaming debris everywhere.

Having you add "just a few points" and not having Bob do so is as as unfair
as anything else that you in turn may consider unfair. By all means make the
points offlist, as suggested.

I appreciate the perceived unfairness, but it goes both ways. You don't have
to see that as logical (even though it is). When you have two people who
cannot see eye to eye over more than a few exchanges on subject material
which starts as not quite marginal but which then becomes 'outside the pale'
it would be good if said protagonists could learn to stay away from the
edge.

And yes, we could refine the rules somewhat if essential, I guess. But I'd
have hoped that minimal rules and enlightened behaviour were
what would be preferred.

I used to wonder why James was so hair-triggered in his reactions and final
warnings when people said and did certain "innocuous" things. I'm beginning
to see why.

I sadly also see that politely asking

                " ... may I please suggest that this stop now ... "

just doesn't work. I HATE to see useful and/or interesting threads killed
for no reason. But it seems it may be needed.

I'll have to look at some of James' old posts to get the "First warning =
Final warning = even breathe in and you die ..." wording goes :-).

__________________

New arbitrary rule made up by Russell. It's unofficial. People may wish to
decide if its useful. If commenting then please do so under [OT]:: New rule?
DO NOT comment on this thread.

New rule?:

- If a thread, OR the response to a thread is related to a technical subject
but also contains references to government OR to subsidies then it MUST be
in [OT].

- This rule does not relax or replace any existing rule. (It just adds
hardship to what exists already)

- This is NOT an opportunity or avenue to discuss the CFL price / subsidy
matter.

Any comment must be in [OT].




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