Just wanted to post a note of thanks to Bob Avery, Martha Segoe, Doug
Schwartz, and anybody else here I may be missing here who have posted
responses or objections to recent threads of discussion here I've gotten
involved in. You are making me think and I appreciate the dialogue. I
really laughed at Martha's comment that every time it seems someone makes a
debating point that seems unimpeachable, someone else comes back with a
deflating zingers, because it is so true. This is what really moves
discussion and thinking forward.

I, too, have much that I could say in response to the zingers to my
zingers, but folks, it could go on forever, and I don't know about the rest
of you, but I am just plain finding keeping up with this list reaching the
point of overwhelmingness. I don't mean to duck any of the responses to me,
but I just can't respond anymore at the present time because I have other
commitments. Also, like Peter Brandt, mentioned in regard to himself, I
have a lot more mail coming into my box than just Veg-Raw, and I can't
afford to read everything here anymore. There is only so much a guy can
keep up with unless you read only one listgroup.

I had thought after having taken a break from much public posting for a few
weeks recently and just lurking here that I would just poke my head in a
couple days ago and respond to a few things I couldn't seem to sit still
for after reading them. But now it looks like I'll just get dragged right
back into late nights at the computer again, which is something I have made
the decision to back off from, since for me personally, too much time at
the computer--and I already spend much of the day at it as a graphic
designer--really fries my nervous system and drains my energy. I know some
people do just fine, but this is an area where for some reason I am just
susceptible, and so I have been forced to place some limits on my
computer-time. Frankly, it feels good.

Also, with the NFL group-mind having created a large ripple of foofaraw and
dissension on the list, I am finding the list increasingly dissatisfying to
read. Not only has the volume of mail increased, but ferreting out the
worthwhile posts from the silly and hate-filled posts of these three
individuals plus the inevitable responses that are generated is getting
difficult.

I have been on other groups and observed what happens when those such as
NFL who lack any sense of common decency to others crash a list and won't
give up: basically the bad drive out the good, and those with thinner skins
but who may have much to contribute simply leave. Then what happens is the
zen dharma-combat people who like to score crushing points and flame their
opponents take over, because they are the only ones who can take all the
heat in the kitchen.... Unless you develop a good charter for the list.

But even then there are no easy answers. I am generally a believer in free
speech, but most listgroups that I have been on who pass through a
transition period like we are now going through with spiteful people like
the NFL guys eventually find they must set some ground rules. What the
ground rules are, are usually set down by the listowners in what is called
a "charter." As far as I know, Veg-Raw has no charter yet, or if it does, I
somehow missed it. What one does is set up an agreement that people agree
to abide by when they subscribe to the list, and the receive warnings when
they first violate the charter; then if they repeatedly violate the
charter, they get booted. The trouble is, this means the list hosts must
keep up with the list on a daily basis, and it can become a ball-and-chain
around their necks.

But almost every large list I have ever been on has charters. The trick is
in arriving at ground rules that don't inadvertently penalize the
well-liked posters and all the others who treat each other decently by
placing restrictions intended to scuttle the jerks that backfire on
everyone. I would suggest we all continue discussing what kinds of
guidelines might be put in place, and go through a debating period like we
are already doing, and not be too hasty to arrive at hard and fast answers.
But prohibiting ad hominem attacks might be a good start. I feel a lot of
sympathy for Peter Brandt and Michael Clingman right now as the listowners
having to agonize over what to do about this.

Anyway, this is partly just prelude to saying I am going to go back to
lurking again for the time being. I don't mean to weasel out responses to
challenges and questions directed at me, because there is more I could add
to the debates I have jumped in on, but honestly, how do the rest of you
feel when you're looking at the clock and it's midnight, and only 15
minutes ago it seemed it was 10:30 or 11:00, and you really want to get to
bed. It just doesn't seem worth it to me anymore. Time to take another
break. Thanks again for the good times though and to those who can somehow
manage to debate with respect. You have my admiration because it is a
difficult balancing act to make strong points without backing down, yet not
steamroll other people emotionally. I apologize if I have at times done
that myself--that's why I have respect for those of you who pull it off
with more ease than I feel able to. Take care everyone,

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS