Re: newcomes - Are You a Moderator? (nt)

[Guest guest]

> Ok I really don't want this to turn into a big thread because such

a

> discussion is an actual waste of posting, but...

>

> Unless (Idol) wrote what he wrote in some fit of irrational

anger, I

> think the clear and reasonable interpretation of his post to Bee is

that the

> scope of this list is defined in large part by the tradition it has

developed over

> the several years it has been in place.

>

> The precedent has undoubtedly been established to discuss almost

anything

> that relates to the stated purpose of the list on its home

page. For

> example, when someone tried to bring up the topic of protesting the

Iraq war, it

> was quickly booted of the list as irrelevant. Not by the

moderator, who by

> tradition rarely intervenes, but several people said it was

irrelevant, by

> basically a consensus the list agreed and so no one responded and a

thread didn't

> develop.

>

> On the other hand political issues ARE allowed if they relate to

WAPF

> principles and actions, native diets, etc. So, for example, if the

merits of a suit

> against Nabisco for using hydrogenated oils are discussed, it is

allowed, even

> though none of Price's subjects sued Nabisco, Price didn't advocate

a lawsuit

> against Nabisco, the WAPF does not have a position on suing

Nabisco, and the

> WAPF has never sued Nabisco.

>

> The Warrior Diet actually has primary relevance to the scope of

this list and

> is in fact much more relevant than the above described thread, and

has been a

> much lower-volume thread than that above-described thread (the

infamous

> " oreo " thread.) One of the foundations of the WD is it is how

traditional people's

> have eaten, in particular hunter-gatherers. It raises the

question, how did

> the people that Price studied eat? It raises the question, how do

traditional

> European societies, etc, eat in meal frequency (e.g. French

Riviera), which

> have been discussed. It is unquestionably within the scope of this

list.

>

> I believe what was saying is that people who have just arrived

on this

> list are not familiar with the precedent and tradition that the

list has

> established, which is why Bee made the fundamentally incorrect

assumption that the

> WD thread was out of the scope of this list.

>

> may or may not have been pointing out that it is rather

arrogant of Bee,

> who is unfamiliar with the tradition and precedent established

regarding the

> scope of the list, to be directing the behavior of those who *have*

developed

> an understanding of the precedent and tradition established

regarding the

> scope of the list.

>

> can of course speak for himself, but to my understanding of

his post I

> fully agree with it. And I don't think he was saying

that " newcomes " have any

> less opinions to shrare or that there opinions are any less

valuable. Rather,

> a newcomer should not be able to change, according to her or his

will, what

> the scope of the list has been for several years.

>

> If you take a look at how the rest of folks have behaved on the

list until

> now, you'll notice that no one tells other people what to talk

about. I've been

> on this list for a year and several months, and this is the very

first time,

> despite several enormous tangential threads, that I've ever seen

anyone tell

> other people what they can and can't talk about. So THAT is the

only kind of

> post that's come up in the last week that has been truly outside

the scope of

> the list.

>

> Chris

>

>

>