But I do feel that both the renewed vitriol on Bill's part, and David's
proposed solution to it, are both for _very_ different reasons wrong. I've
already indicated my views with respect to the former, in previous
mailings; here's just a brief word on the latter.
Removal from a mailing list raises several serious issues of
a) Ownership. I like to think we all own it- including those interested in
PCP who have yet to use it- rather than David and those he would propose to
consult in banning people who act inappropriately. I say this without
gainsaying in the slightest the hard work put in by David who made all our
communications on this forum possible, and the enormous debt we all owe
him.
b) Dissent. How one manages it says a lot about the values to which one
subscribes, to paraphrase (Stevenson, I believe?). My personal values don't
include banishment.
c) Personal integrity. Removal prevents us from making up our own minds
about, and our freedom to choose an appropriate response to, someone who,
we feel, has overstepped the mark.
d) Personal responsibility. It might also be said, (though I'm less sure of
my ground here), to prevent me from exercising responsibility, since only I
can be responsible for the appropriateness, or inappropriateness, of the
responses I make to postings like Bill's.
It's not easy, and know that David shares the thrust of my concerns, as he
indicated in his posting. Maybe we simply differ on where we'd draw the
line!
At any rate, here's one small voice which would argue that we shouldn't
draw the line at this point.
Kindest regards,
Devi Jankowicz
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%