> > I call BS. John Stossel is the source of this false news item. He is
> > full of it. If it was true, real news would have covered it.

> Is "The San Diego Union-Tribune" real enough for you?

> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1e18zwolink.html
>
> Would you like me to find and cite the anti-gouging laws? Or would it tak=
e a
> copy of the arrest warrant to satisfy you?

Zwolinski SEEMS real
       http://home.sandiego.edu/~mzwolinski/
Whether he did his homework would need TBD.
The story seems to have little coverage overall and it's all too easy
to be fooled by something on-web if due diligence is not done.

If Bob is happy to engage with V' on this at this level in public
then, by all means, lay on.
If however this is a modal exchange where it's OK for a while and then
not OK and then OK and ... , then it may be a better idea to politely
explain what parts are and aren't acceptable for ongoing guidance.

A very important issue is that the PICList FAQ is excessively wooly on
this area.
It essentially says "no politics".

*** However ***, many list members would happily distinguish between
economics and politics - and many do. There are often several parallel
economic discussions which variably border on philosophical human
organisational(aka politics) in progress, and a range of people
contribute amicably, including eg Bob and herbert and (occasionally)
me. (Usually of less interest to me than to some others).

It seems very highly desirable that the rules be clear enough that
proper boundaries can be easily distinguished.
Having political include "economics, but only  if espoused by Vitaliy"
would be clear and understandable enough, but it would need to be
written into the faq so we know how to deal with it. At present we
have implicit rules like "this is not politics because its was posted
by [Joe | Bob | Herbert | Oli | Olin (even) | russell | J... ]. Again
- if this was in the faq we could understand it, but at present it's
not so how to decide where the boundaries are is hard and this causes
problems.

Maybe we need a simple rule like "Vitaliy said this so it must be
politics so it is forbidden" or some such equally simple rule to
follow. If we don't have such a rule and if we insist on not improving
what the faq says then I suggest we should start off with the implict
rule "economics <> politics unless it also features a donkey and or an
elephant or a Swastika or ... ". I don't like that rule myself as some
such material clearly is too like "real" politics, but if we care (as
we seem to do) then let's make it a bit clearer than at present.

It may be useful if list members OTHER THAN Vitaliy and Bob (and
russell ? :-) ) say publicly what they think "no politics" may or does
mean. Having a corporate view may help.

If everyone does their usual thing and doesn't participate then we
will just have to stay with "If Vitaliy says it then it's politics and
its bad" as at present.

[[[ I personally would NOT want to see Vitaliy (or Bob) free to
discuss their more extreme philosophical  ideas under the guide of
"not politics" (as too many people will then want  to add their "not
political" alternatives as well) - BUT I do want a clearer and
acceptable boundary defined.]]]

_______________

re initial discussion:

It would be nice for protagonists to change the tag to something
apposite (but polite :-) ) so that people can decide if it's liable to
be worth reading.

In fact, having an accurate subject line would go a long way  towards
allowing acceptable but potentially marginal material to be discussed
with less potential impact.



 Russell

PS - politics is largely of low interest to me. Economic systems only
somewhat less so. Here we don't have Republicans or Democrats or even
Gubbernators. We do have somewhat equivalent entities.  I'm more
liable to be driven to sleep than to rage by detailed discussions of
such.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.