Kirt and Marie,

At first I wasn't going to reply publically to this message, to not risk "stirring" things up, but
thinking more about my reply I think it would benefit the group to hear my response. Also, I think
it might benefit Bob to hear this
since I think he's lurking in this group.

I believe that Bob either has someone forwarding all posts to him, or the
archive gets updated very quickly or else he's a member of the list under some
other account name. In any case, he got my "addictions" post to the group and replied to it pretty
quickly so I'll assume he's present in read-only mode.

Kirt says:

> Does Bob mention why he doesn't attempt to unbanish himself, or does he
> perhaps enjoy his role-play more than his participation in this forum?
> Hmmm...

I think Bob doesn't attempt to unbanish himself because that would require him to change his beliefs
or at least his behavior. I believe he's interested in the discussions here and keeps up on this
group in the only way possible given his beliefs. To rejoin the group Bob has to be willing to play
nice and he's not willing to do that. This is just my guess.

When Peter banished Bob and the others from the list at first I was upset. I didn't, and still
don't, agree with Peter's action coming from a very volatile emotional space. I wasn't even sure
that banishment was a good idea, being a believer in freedom of speech. However, I noticed after the
banishment that the
group immediately lightened up TREMENDOUSLY. I've changed my mind.

It will be interesting to see how the new raw group, that a couple of the banished people post to,
evolves. I'm subscribed to both and I'm curious to compare tones of the two groups in a month or
two.

Democracy is not always a good idea.

Sol