> However now you're getting
> into religion (totally banned as I understand it), and otherwise just
> attacking Vitaliy. =A0You haven't made a single scientific or reasoned po=
int
> above, just declaring Vitaliy a dirtbag.

I think that was an attempt at parody and example by Bob.
Maybe not as successful as desired.

I think he was trying to demonstrate the use of N different banned
subjects simultaneously to show how provocative it can be.
Seems to have succeeded.

Here we have religion and hate - the politics may have got lost.
Maybe that should have been 'WWJD re Libertarian dirtbag' :-)?

Seriously - Bob and I are by no means totally disagreed on what is
required - just on methods.
Bob has perhaps got a wee bit close to the subject personally.

My perception is that "no politics" is too loose a rule.
If many things were going to be overlooked in most cases then it may be OK.
But, if Bob want's to curb Vitaliy's libertarian utterings, which he
does choose to  consciously & provocatively utter from time to time,
then we either need a special rule for Vitaliy, or a more manageable
rule that all can happily march to. "Admin's discretion" is fine
enough if the admins can be totally objective. If you have mere humans
in the role it may be a problem.


        Russell



..

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.