The lack of intellectual content to your messages
would get you banned from any reasonably moderated
list. You follow the insipidly stupid comment that I
observed with more insipidly stupid comments. It's not
whining but observation that they've done nothing to
contribute to the discussions, and to prove the point
they close down the list. Just an indication of THEIR
intellectual capacity.

Peter.


--- Rich Vázquez <rich.vazquez@...> wrote:

> Exactly - you would be banned in a normally
> moderated list. So quit whining
> and start your own list. Perhaps one that follows
> basic netiquette and
> decent human interaction - like lack of insults for
> the sake of insults and
> building up tiny bully egos or cross-posting spam.
>
> They aren't shutting down everything - everyone here
> has the ability to
> start a list and spend their time and energy doing
> or not doing anything.
> And everyone can follow. Start a list, be
> righteous, invite others.. see if
> anyone shows up.
>
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 9:39 PM, Peter Hogwood
> <p_t_hogwood@...> wrote:
>
> > "The list is run on *their* time and energy."
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What an insipidly stupid comment. What "time and
> > energy"? For the past several years, they, the
> > so-called "moderator" included, have done nothing
> > whatsoever to promote the list, or take part in or
> > guide the discussions. They don't read the
> messages.
> > Spam stays in the archive for weeks and months.
> What
> > a pitiable excuse for "them." And now "they" want
> to
> > shut it down.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --- Rich Vázquez <rich.vazquez@...
> <rich.vazquez%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Nobody decided to "end free discussion." The
> > > owners of this list extended
> > > the opportunity for people to set up their own
> > > mailing lists and announce
> > > them here, which some have done.
> > >
> > > If you don't like their decision, you can set up
> > > your own list and announce
> > > it here.
> > >
> > > The owners of the list are not obligated to run
> the
> > > list in a way that we
> > > demand. The list is run on *their* time and
> energy.
> > > People who want that
> > > environment can set up their own and announce
> them
> > > here.
> > >
> > > Frankly, they are being responsible my
> recognizing
> > > the limitations of their
> > > intended scope and final project. It's not easy
> to
> > > "end" or drastically
> > > change a community.
> > >
> > > Solutions to all complaints about the change in
> > > format: Start your own list.
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:47 PM, John C. Turmel
> > > <bc726@...
> <bc726%40freenet.carleton.ca>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >#8471From: "cwilli5210" <CWilli5210@>
> > > > > >Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:21 pm
> > > > > >Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion group
> > > cwilli5210
> > > > >
> > > > > CW: Dear IJCCR discussion group members,
> > > > > As Editor of the IJCCR journal for some ten
> > > years, and also
> > > > > hands-off moderator of this Group for the
> same
> > > time, I would
> > > > > like to announce that the new Editorial
> Board of
> > > the journal
> > > > > has decided that this 'discussion list' is
> not
> > > fulfilling
> > > > > its original aim, which was to be a forum
> for
> > > discussion of
> > > > > the issues arising in the journal articles.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > JCT: So how many people made the decision to
> end
> > > free
> > > > > discussion? And who were in on the decision?
> > > >
> > > > Jct: We're still waiting to find out who was
> in on
> > > the decision to end
> > > > discussion in this group. I know the members
> had
> > > no say. So who did?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Rich Vázquez, CISSP, CISA
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > >
> > >



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/