Peter said:
>>>>If you refuse to censor yourselves, I will have to do it for you.

J.R Ellis Said:
>>>that would be unfortunate if peter were to censor NFL. I would feel
>>>deprived. I want NFL to be a part of this forum. I have been
>>>reading all the posts, and find NFL to be no more insulting than
>>>peter and others who rank NFL.

> Sorry, Peter, I have to agree.

I find it very difficult to believe that we are talking about the same
thing.  Even if I and maybe others sometimes sink to the same insulting
level as NFL, the fact that we do it with content and rational
arguments and not just emotionality makes a world of difference.  Not
to mention the fact that the NFL folks only have cared to respond to a
fraction of the questions & comments directed their way.

Peter said:
>> My tone is indeed getting harsher. In a long thread like this which
>> involves a lot debating of core principles, it gets very difficult
>>for me as a moderator not to speak my mind more and more.  Though,
>>that you  are not able to see any difference between their personal
>>tacks void of any content and my contributions despite my increasing
>>personal style I find disturbing to say the least.

> Why bother to respond to posts you see as personal attacks void of
>any content??

And abandon my job & duty as moderator?

>Although, I have to agree with you here. I haven't seen
>much "content" on either side but lots of "personal attacks".

We must have very different definitions of content. I find f.ex. Kirt's
or Ward's responses to NFL to be be packed with content.

J.R Ellis said:
>>>I find both sides acceptable and not out of line. I support Kirt,
>>>and I support NFL, and I think you peter are abusing your role of
>>>moderator.

Peter said:
>> Exercising my privilege to moderate is abuse? How can you can mean
>> that? Most moderators would have kicked NFL out long ago and despite
>> that they have been given numerous chances they have not grabbed the
>> opportunity to soften their stance one bit.  I want no part of a
>> list neither as a moderator nor regular subscriber that allows the
>> kind of abuse of a public forum that the NFL practices to take
>>place.

>I don't understand why NFL would have been kicked out long ago. The
>only stance I've seen is a defensive one. Granted, they are young,
>arrogant & brash & I haven't learned one thing from them & suspect
>that will continue.

Their age aside, in your lines above there is IMO more than enough
reason to take some kind of action against them.

> I have to wonder what their posts might consist of if they
> weren't trading insults.

Go back to some of the earlier exchanges and you will find some very
polite & respectful responses to them, which they chose to completely
trash or ignore.

>That is ver  they're young & over-zealous & have
>"discovered" a way of life, that for many on this list, is old-hat.
>Did you not feel some of that when you first became vegetarian or
>vegan or raw-foodist? Didn't you feel you had found the "truth" &
>wonder why the rest of the world couldn't see it?

I still do, but have never have acted out to the degree of NFL. And if
I did, somebody should have pointed it out to me.

<SNIP>

Peter said:
>> Asking the members of NFL to resubscribe individually is censoring
>> them?  You have lost me there.

>I see the whole discourse on whether or not to allow NFL to post as an
>entity or require individual posts as pointless. No matter what name
>is used it's still coming from the same source. A rose by any other
>name....

Maybe. But it is my best shot. Besides flock mentality & group identity
lends itself much more to the harsh style of NFL than individual
accountability.

<SNIP>

>As for anonymous posts, I suppose we could all be using aliases. So,
>again, it's really a moot point.

We could but we don't. And even if we did, we would most likely just be
one individual expressing our views, and not the dynamics of a group
identity constantly having to perpetuate and defend a certain group
image.

<SNIP>

>I want everyone in this group to feel free to relate & discuss all
>ideas, thoughts & beliefs on raw foods (fruit, vegetable, animal,
>mineral). I even enjoy the personal exchanges  when they're pleasant &
>uplifting but tire quickly of name-calling etc.

And yet you are standing up so much for NFL the worst offender of all.
In fact, before NFL there was no name calling to speak of on this list,
and my job as a moderator was a breeze compared to what it is now.

>It was that line "if anybody else wants to join in the time is now"
>that got me started.

And I am glad you did. Now all you need to do is see things my way. :-)

<SNIP>

>What would happen if no one responded to personal attacks? Would it be
>like giving a war & no one coming?

Your vision is beautiful, but it is only a natural human impulse to
want & need to respond to massive provovations like those found in
NFL's postings and to stand for those who cannot. Besides, why have
them on the list if not to respond them and why allow them to slowly
poison the atmosphere of this list by their intimidating & polarizing
style?

>As I said, I'm just learning - ya'll don't desert me now. Please.
>With an olive branch,

How about extending that olive branch to the likes of me who simply is
too spooked by the brash style of the NFL folks and too thin-skinned to
be able to put with their abrasive behavior?

>Sharon

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]