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

[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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

>straight...) - MODERATORS?

>

>

>Suze-

>

>>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?

>

>No, name-calling is not an acceptable practice, but from my perspective, I

>granted Gene more leeway rather than less because he was calling me a name

>rather than someone else.

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.

>

>>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.

>

>Gene is on permanent moderation.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

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?

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]

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

>straight...) - MODERATORS?

>

>> 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.

>

>Memories of Junior high school.....

I love you too Gene :-) <BIG KISS>

heh.

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]

People, I'm serious. Drop this subject. It is off-topic, it is not

productive, and there's more than enough derogatory crap going around. If

you keep it up I'm going to start putting ALL the participants on

moderation and deleting all violating posts.

-

[Guest guest]

Todd-

>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.

I do think it's potentially a big deal, though, at least for meat-eating

NT-type leftists like us. Among other things, our rarity makes the things

we need harder to find in the places we tend to live. (Of course, the

whole idea of a geographic 50/50 split between the two sides in the country

is highly simplistic, but the point is still relevant.)

-

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>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.

Unfortunately, I think one source of the fundamental divide over diet is

pretty heavily bound to root right/left religious/secular values, and thus

may prove depressingly intractable. Many religious people on the right,

particularly fundamentalists, believe that the Earth and everything on it,

including animals, were put here for human use and in human

custody. Therefore they often don't perceive any kind of moral objection

to eating meat, and those of them who are interested in health are thus

quite open to WAPF-style ideas. People on the left, however, tend not to

believe in the divine right of humans to eat animals and do with the world

what they want. They're more likely to be interested in environmental

conservation and animal rights, and as such they're more emotionally open

to vegetarian types of ideas and resistant to the notion that eating

animals isn't just a potentially healthy option but effectively necessary.

How to bridge that gap? I'm not sure. Certainly pointing out that the

main calorie sources vegetarians rely on, grains and legumes, are harvested

by giant machines which kill legions of smaller animals, ought to be

useful, but the simple logical argument that (a) humans need animal foods,

and not just dairy but actual meat and organs, and ( eating grass-fed

ruminants is actually much more humane than eating wheat and corn and soy,

because only a relatively few animals are killed instead of hordes of

smaller ones, isn't likely to be adequate for most people.

I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to successfully evangelize to the

left. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>

> 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 moderate a couple of low carb lists in the UK. In the early days,

discussions on politics and religion would start flame wars and we'd

lose lots of members over them, so discussion on both topics were

banned. Now we generally have happy lists. (Those lists were not able

to cope with flame wars like this one does so it was the right thing to

do.)

I do find though that religious discussions are far more frequent on US

lists than any UK lists I have been on before.

Jo