mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...) - MODERATORS?

[Guest guest]

> Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

>straight...)

>

>Do I make my point by accidentally including these things? No.

>Sorry if it annoys you. I'll stop posting, asshole.

OK, I guess I need to have the record set straight here. Since there was no

reprimand for a listmember calling the list owner an asshole, does that mean

name-calling is an acceptable practice on this list? Is it not a

moderate-able offense? Honestly, I'm on about 30 lists (I only read a few

these days though!) and I've never known any of them to allow name-calling

without some sort of action by the moderator.

While most of us do not engage in name-calling, so there is probably little

risk of 5, 10 or 20 other people starting to call each other assholes on

this list anytime soon, it seems to me that allowing this sets a precident.

If one list member is allowed to do this, why not the rest of us? Would

anyone moderate me if I called another list member a sh*thead tomorrow?

Maybe it would be a good idea to give us a set of list rules so we know what

is acceptable behavior and what is not. Cuz right now, I'm confused as to

why something like this is acceptable. And since it does appear to be

acceptable (because no one appears to have reprimanded Gene for it), I feel

like I need to understand what IS an moderate-able offense?

Forgive me if this was dealt with off-list and I have misspoken.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > LOL

>

> Gene!!!

>

> L-l-lucifer? Son of the morning?

> B.

The 'L-l' is silent, dropped centuries ago.

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > >I understand - you want BLOOD, because I used a bad word, and now

> other

> > >people might use BAD WORDS. Oh my!

> >

> > You know -- and I'm not directing this just at you, Gene -- this

> whole

> > subject is getting really old and cluttering up the list.

> >

> >

> > -

>

> I agree with , but I will just say this:

>

> I don't want blood, Gene. Certainly not your blood. My wife is in her

> period. Why on earth should I want more blood now? But I will afford

> myself the chance of being evasive as well. You are an intelligent

> person, but you have been spilling much of your bile all around. Stop

> it, please. You are a musician. Show us that you can do something

> good. Play us a nice song, for a change. I really mean it.

>

> José

I have a diet related condition that causes a bile overflow onto email lists.

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>For the record, I think you deserve as much respect as everyone else, if not

>*more* for the simple fact that you are doing us all a somewhat thankless

>service by administering this list. You probably don't hear it often enough,

>but " thank you " to you, Wanita and Heidi for taking on this responsibility.

Thanks, and I'm certainly not going to tolerate name-calling directed at

Heidi and Wanita, but regardless of whether or not people should be more

courteous to me, I think it's a general rule of thumb that leaders,

administrators, managers, etc., shouldn't get overly jealous of their

prerogatives. When they start making a big production of demanding

respect, it always seems to mean they're more interested in the power and

the position than the responsibilities and the duties.

>BTW, what ever happened to the " POLITICS " tag? I thought we were supposed to

>use that for any religious or other offtopic discussions so the folks who

>complain about all the offtopic clutter can easily delete this stuff? Now we

>have a " RELIGION " tag lately. Is that what you want us to do? Use one, the

>other or both?

Yeah, that's been slipping lately, and I've been wondering whether I should

change my mind and start insisting on two separate tags, one for POLITICS

and one for RELIGION, since religion does seem to come up pretty frequently.

(On a semi-related note, I find it fascinating that there seems to be a

pretty strong correlation between politics and dietary

predilections. People on the left seem to gravitate towards vegetarianism

and the like much more often than people on the right, and people on the

right, particularly very religious ones, seem more attracted to WAPF-type

eating. I buy a lot of my meat from a biodynamic farm at the farmers'

market, and several of the people from the farm are vegetarians! Or

lacto-vegetarians, anyway, since they'll eat all sorts of raw dairy but no

meat or fish. They're really nice people, but sometimes I feel like

smacking some sense into their heads. They're selling meat that's quite

decent by even strict standards, though certainly there's a lot of room for

nutritional improvement, and they're not taking advantage of it

themselves! SHEESH! Of course there are plenty of exceptions; it's just a

tendency, not anything like an absolute rule. But it's definitely there.)

-

[Guest guest]

-

> > You know -- and I'm not directing this just at you, Gene -- this whole

> > subject is getting really old and cluttering up the list.

>

>,

>I was actally commenting more on your tolerance. Sorry, all, was up

>too late reading that comparative religion stuff and now everything is

>screwy in me head. Didn't mean to offend.

Huh? I wasn't complaining about anything particular you said. I just

don't want to waste people's time and clutter up the list overmuch with

this sort of thing.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>

> (On a semi-related note, I find it fascinating that there seems to be a

> pretty strong correlation between politics and dietary

> predilections. People on the left seem to gravitate towards

> vegetarianism

> and the like much more often than people on the right, and people on the

> right, particularly very religious ones, seem more attracted to WAPF-type

> eating. I buy a lot of my meat from a biodynamic farm at the farmers'

> market, and several of the people from the farm are vegetarians! Or

> lacto-vegetarians, anyway, since they'll eat all sorts of raw dairy

> but no

> meat or fish. They're really nice people, but sometimes I feel like

> smacking some sense into their heads. They're selling meat that's quite

> decent by even strict standards, though certainly there's a lot of

> room for

> nutritional improvement, and they're not taking advantage of it

> themselves! SHEESH! Of course there are plenty of exceptions; it's

> just a

> tendency, not anything like an absolute rule. But it's definitely there.)

>

Count me as one of the exceptions, then assuming that left and right

mean the same in Australia. hmm...but I think I see how you can come to

that conclusion

[Guest guest]

If we are going to attempt to outline what may offend or unsettle one of

the many listmembers then we could be here all day. Name-calling, sure

but then there's the talk about religion which I'm sure is not

everyone's cup of tea, politics itself, or half the list could talk

about their sexual problems or the ladies could go into detail about

their periods.

[Guest guest]

>Name-calling, sure but then there's the talk about religion which I'm sure is

not

>everyone's cup of tea, politics itself, or half the list could talk

>about their sexual problems or the ladies could go into detail about

>their periods.

>

>

,

I am sure our cool-headed, fearless, Listgod , has it all under

control. Thanks be to . In fact, I haven't seen such a list of dos

and don'ts on any list I am on. Also, boobs, butts and poop often come

up for topic, and may well give some here indigestion. And JC - a man -

brought up his wife's period earlier this very day (or yesterday for you

maybe). ;-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-

>Count me as one of the exceptions, then assuming that left and right

>mean the same in Australia. hmm...but I think I see how you can come to

>that conclusion

Well, I am too, being essentially a leftist, albeit a largely libertarian

one, but I'm not the only one who's noticed that (at least here in the

States) a lot of the people interested in getting back to the land, eating

healthy foods including plenty of grass-fed meat, etc. etc., are very

religious, and often even fundamentalists. The secular left, by contrast,

is the home of vegetarian animal rights activists who eat macrobiotic dreck

and sermonize about the evils of eating meat and animal fats. Not all the

secular left, of course, but every sphere has its embarrassments -- and its

exceptions.

-

[Guest guest]

> Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

>straight...) - MODERATORS?

>

>

>

>>Name-calling, sure but then there's the talk about religion which

>I'm sure is not

>>everyone's cup of tea, politics itself, or half the list could talk

>>about their sexual problems or the ladies could go into detail about

>>their periods.

>>

>>

>,

>

>I am sure our cool-headed, fearless, Listgod , has it all under

>control. Thanks be to . In fact, I haven't seen such a list of dos

>and don'ts on any list I am on.

And I've seen one on about every list I'm on. It's the norm from my

experience.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze,

>

>And I've seen one on about every list I'm on. It's the norm from my

>experience.

>

But we're not normal, hee hee hee (couldn't resist that one <g>). Is

there such a list on chapter leaders list? I agree that it can be

helpful, especially to new listees who may not know the culture - which,

let's face it, can run the gamut of possibilities from curtness to

smootchies.

Regards,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I didn't even know about this last problem until I read Suze' mail that

quoted what Gene said to . The reason I didn't know is because I stopped

reading any thread that involves Gene a while ago (unless he is writing

directly to me.) He seems to go out of his way to provoke people and it was

getting boring. Provacative is good but predictable gets old mighty quick.

But since you're all taking about Gene and the group rules and so forth, I

was hoping that I could ask Gene to please sign his posts. I don't know if

he realizes it but unsigned posts just seem a little rude -- at least to me.

Thank you. ~Robin

[Guest guest]

I totally agree. I think it is basic email etiquette to sign your posts and

basically egotistical to regularly not sign them and assume that everyone

will know that it is you.

I too stopped reading these posts several days ago. I keep popping back in

and reading a few just to see if the topic has actually changed. Not yet

Blessings,

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Robin Ann

Provacative is good but predictable gets old mighty quick.

But since you're all taking about Gene and the group rules and so forth, I

was hoping that I could ask Gene to please sign his posts. I don't know if

he realizes it but unsigned posts just seem a little rude -- at least to me.

Thank you. ~Robin

[Guest guest]

Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

straight...) - MODERATORS?

I didn't even know about this last problem until I read Suze' mail that

quoted what Gene said to . The reason I didn't know is because I stopped

reading any thread that involves Gene a while ago (unless he is writing

directly to me.) He seems to go out of his way to provoke people and it was

getting boring. Provacative is good but predictable gets old mighty quick.

But since you're all taking about Gene and the group rules and so forth, I

was hoping that I could ask Gene to please sign his posts. I don't know if

he realizes it but unsigned posts just seem a little rude -- at least to me.

Thank you. ~Robin

Let me see. It's not ok for me to get mad at the moderator, but it IS ok for

you to post to the list and talk about what an ass I am. And then, brag that

you don't read my posts, but could someone please tell me to sign them,

because even though you know they're from me (they're the ones you don't

read, after all), it's rude of me to forget to sign them?

Some of this stuff is pretty hilarious.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

You may want to re-read her post because evidentally you were not paying

attention. She (unlike you) did not resort to name calling. YES we can

still tell the messages are from you. BUT it is still rude to not sign you

posts. To me it is basically the same as hanging up on someone with out

saying goodbye.

Blessings,

,

You may want to reread my post, because evidentally you were not paying

attention. I did not accuse her of name calling. What I said was that it

amounted to little different than my post. I also called attention to the

fact that she mentioned that she didn't read my post, buy (oh, tee hee) can

I please ask this horrible man to sign them because I wouldn't want to

ignore such rudeness. Yeah - I found that pretty funny.

As far as being rude, I forget to sign my posts. Sorry if that offends you.

Cute analogy with a phone call, but I don't think that it's very similar. I

am not 'hanging up' out of anger.

GENE

[Guest guest]

> Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

>straight...) - MODERATORS?

>

>

>Suze,

>

>>

>>And I've seen one on about every list I'm on. It's the norm from my

>>experience.

>>

>But we're not normal, hee hee hee (couldn't resist that one <g>). Is

>there such a list on chapter leaders list?

Funny, I figured you'd ask that :-) Nope there is not for a couple of

reasons.

a) there is no pattern of flaming as there is on this list. I've only had

one person in the history of the list who seriously breached basic list

Netiquette.

it's not a public list as this one is in that it's a self-selected,

somewhat more unifiend group (I or approve every membership and they

must be a chapterleader or seriously considering becoming one). I imagine

this is why we rarely ever get a flame. (Only one blantant instance that I

can think of which rivals what is not so infrequent an occurance on this

list.)

Thus, I haven't yet found a need to create list rules for that list.

Although I may at some point if the need arises. I would definitely make a

set of list rules if I moderated *this* list however. BUT, that is not an

indictment of how has chose to run *his* list. We are two different

people with somewhat different ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.

Ce la vie. However, he apparently has handled the current situation almost

exactly as I would have, so there ya have it.

I agree that it can be

>helpful, especially to new listees who may not know the culture - which,

>let's face it, can run the gamut of possibilities from curtness to

>smootchies.

Indeed!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

I was specifically talking about your statement " talk about what an ass I

am " . She did not say that.

As for the analogy. It is perfect. I did not say that you slammed down the

phone just hung up without saying good bye. I think you really have issues

with reading what you want into others posts.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Gene Schwartz

Gene,

You may want to re-read her post because evidentally you were not paying

attention. She (unlike you) did not resort to name calling. YES we can

still tell the messages are from you. BUT it is still rude to not sign you

posts. To me it is basically the same as hanging up on someone with out

saying goodbye.

Blessings,

,

You may want to reread my post, because evidentally you were not paying

attention. I did not accuse her of name calling. What I said was that it

amounted to little different than my post. I also called attention to the

fact that she mentioned that she didn't read my post, buy (oh, tee hee) can

I please ask this horrible man to sign them because I wouldn't want to

ignore such rudeness. Yeah - I found that pretty funny.

As far as being rude, I forget to sign my posts. Sorry if that offends you.

Cute analogy with a phone call, but I don't think that it's very similar. I

am not 'hanging up' out of anger.

GENE

[Guest guest]

Deanna wrote:

>

>

> And JC - a man -

> brought up his wife's period earlier this very day (or yesterday for you

> maybe). ;-)

>

yeah well, in my own roundabout way, that was what I was getting at. It

was the context that I thought was inappropriate more than anything

else. I am mostly sure that JC didn't mean to be offensive but can't

rule it out completely given the fact that he was objecting to the

name-calling.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I was specifically talking about your statement " talk about what an

> ass I am " . She did not say that.

>

yes, but that's how it was meant was it not? She was saying that his

behaviour was that of an ass. And you KNOW that's what Gene meant too.

He can backquote just as well as anybody else.

[Guest guest]

I am sorry but I personally don't see how she was calling him an " ass " .

She said that " He seems to go out of his way to provoke people and it was

getting boring. "

I don't see how the leap was made to her calling him any names or even was

meaning to insinuate that statement.

I understand that Gene like to suck people into his world. I was not trying

to get involved into this discussion I was trying to agree with the fact

that I think it has gone too far and is now just taking up space on a list

that used to be educational for me and my family regarding native nutrition.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of

wrote:

> I was specifically talking about your statement " talk about what an

> ass I am " . She did not say that.

>

yes, but that's how it was meant was it not? She was saying that his

behaviour was that of an ass. And you KNOW that's what Gene meant too.

He can backquote just as well as anybody else.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:05:19PM -0400, Idol wrote:

> -

>

> >Count me as one of the exceptions, then assuming that left and right

> >mean the same in Australia. hmm...but I think I see how you can come to

> >that conclusion

>

> Well, I am too, being essentially a leftist, albeit a largely libertarian

> one, but I'm not the only one who's noticed that (at least here in the

> States) a lot of the people interested in getting back to the land, eating

> healthy foods including plenty of grass-fed meat, etc. etc., are very

> religious, and often even fundamentalists. The secular left, by contrast,

> is the home of vegetarian animal rights activists who eat macrobiotic dreck

> and sermonize about the evils of eating meat and animal fats. Not all the

> secular left, of course, but every sphere has its embarrassments -- and its

> exceptions.

OK, one more exception! But I agree, . When I started blogging I

was surprised to find that just about all of the bloggers writing

about NT-type stuff are very religious, and typically homeschool their

children. Not exactly un-schoolers, I don't think. No big deal, I just

thought it was interesting.

Todd

[Guest guest]

Oh well, it was no great leap for me.

> I understand that Gene like to suck people into his world. I was not

> trying

> to get involved into this discussion I was trying to agree with the fact

> that I think it has gone too far and is now just taking up space on a list

> that used to be educational for me and my family regarding native

> nutrition.

Well that is funny how you rationalised getting involved and continuing

the conversation that you have expressed as boring.

I can see you probably feel bad for allowing yourself to be sucked in.

Just remember - you have the power to not hit that reply button, just as

Gene has the power to skip the topics that he thinks are silly and not

respond.

This list is still educational for me. I love all the differing

opinions and the flair with which (most) people make their case. Plus

the fact that (most) people can agree to disagree - like I hope " we " can

with the ass comment. When it degenerates into name-calling then you

can see the strength of someone's character. And when I am not

interested in a topic I just press the delete key. Magic.

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Todd Slater <dontodd@...> wrote:

> > >Count me as one of the exceptions, then assuming that left and right

> > >mean the same in Australia. hmm...but I think I see how you can come to

> > >that conclusion

> >

> > Well, I am too, being essentially a leftist, albeit a largely libertarian

> > one, but I'm not the only one who's noticed that (at least here in the

> > States) a lot of the people interested in getting back to the land, eating

> > healthy foods including plenty of grass-fed meat, etc. etc., are very

> > religious, and often even fundamentalists. The secular left, by contrast,

> > is the home of vegetarian animal rights activists who eat macrobiotic dreck

> > and sermonize about the evils of eating meat and animal fats. Not all the

> > secular left, of course, but every sphere has its embarrassments -- and its

> > exceptions.

>

> OK, one more exception! But I agree, . When I started blogging I

> was surprised to find that just about all of the bloggers writing

> about NT-type stuff are very religious, and typically homeschool their

> children. Not exactly un-schoolers, I don't think. No big deal, I just

> thought it was interesting.

>

> Todd

Prior to NT I was on quite a few homesteading lists. All had

fundamentalists, pagans and holy wars. I'd unsubscribe from one list,

find the same on another and eventually found listowners were banning

the subject. I volunteer at our local food pantry. This town has a

high progressive left, pro Constitutional rights, vegetarian

population. Quite a few are gluten and/or dairy free. Interesting, the

control issues of food/rights/ values. Meat could just be what's

contended over. Honesty comes from self contention.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> >

> > And JC - a man -

> > brought up his wife's period earlier this very day (or yesterday

for you

> > maybe). ;-)

> >

> yeah well, in my own roundabout way, that was what I was getting

at. It

> was the context that I thought was inappropriate more than anything

> else. I am mostly sure that JC didn't mean to be offensive but

can't

> rule it out completely given the fact that he was objecting to the

> name-calling.

>

>

Hi :

Ambiguity can be a very common phenomenom on a virtual list, that's

why reality checks are useful.

I wasn't being offensive. Although I don't much like to employ the

word *never*, I would say that I am never offensive (this goes

against what I learned from my late parents and later validated in my

own life), but I can be defensive, yes, sir. And *funny*, much of

time, although I can't expect that everyone will get the *funny* gist

of what I am saying or laugh together with me.

I was indeed objecting to the name-calling, in the first place from a

personal aesthetical stance, so to say, which makes me dislike the

sound of certain words, including *asshole*. But, linguistically

speaking, maybe I shouldn't have objected to it. I am not an American

and don't know the recently acquired meanings of *asshole* (maybe it

is not that offensive any more). Or maybe I should have stressed the

fact that I am - always - speaking from the point of view of a

foreigner and a non-speaker of English as a first language.

Maybe Gene was simply ventilating his *anger* or whatever he was

feeling, and shouldn't be taken very seriously. Maybe that was just

camarederie. Or maybe again he was saying it with his tongue in his

cheek. So it may be too unfair the decision to take him directly to

the pillory. But, objectively speaking, calling names is highly

offensive in every culture I know of, and so I think you should be

very careful with those words, measuring in the first place what you

are going to say. Especially on the Internet, where you mostly don't

hear the tones and don't see the faces. You may not be able to eat

your own words back [justify yourself] or what is worse they may come

back to you like a boomerang.

As for the blood, I was actually offering the group a koan, so to

say. I apologize if somehow I sounded sexist. Not my intention.

José

[Guest guest]

Sorry about post with this subject that just showed up...it took a full 24

hours for it to show up, and I have stopped posting on this topic.