Russell McMahon wrote:
> It may be that my opposite approach to Herberts - one of grosspublic
> discussion - something like data dump / chain of consciousness / ...
> has masked the fact that I have addressed the key elements of your
> questions. Or think I have :-).

You have commented.  But like Herbert, you've also made it clear it's not
the official gospel (his words).

> You expound at length on your positionm and then provide a "solution"
> which is utterly contrary in its effect to the motive for you being on
> moderation.

Hmm.  I don't see it that way, but I respect your view of it to be genuine.

> ie as long as you not only think it is appropriate to
> abuse and hound newcomers

You keep talking about newcomers.  I've only said that *anyone* needs to
show some respect when asking 2000 people for a favor.  My only distinction
is that newcomers haven't been around and contributed and therefore haven't
earned any slack yet.

> to the list but insist that you need to be
> taken off moderation so you can do so,

Actually I insist I be taken off moderation because it's just plain wrong.

I also object to how I was put on moderation, which was "just because" even
though there was nothing specific I was blamed for doing nor any rule I was
supposed to have broken.

That and the fact that it's been many months, including several months of
near silence from me.  So even if I say nothing at all, the punishment
persists.  When I try to get the situation changed, I'm blamed for stirring
things up.  Can't you see the catch-22 here?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist