>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.

I, too, noted what you speak of and was similarly impressed...

>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.

Democracy is a great idea! but not in the hands of non-democratic
people--which I guess is what you're saying. Anarchy is another great idea,
but severely limited by each person's unwillingness to take responsibility
for their behavior and how it affects others. I'm not sure which was the
operating principle governing this list before the banishment, but am
delighted that the list seems to have found a new lease on life, so to
speak...

It appears that the new list is something of an invite-only list--at least
I have been unable to find instructions about subscribing. An invite-only
list would effectively banish scores of people. And even if it does become
open to the public like raw-foods is, how long would it be until I, for
instance, was banished from such a list if I chose to challenge the content
of NFL-style postings? I am pretty much "all used up" posting here and am
not about to get drawn into another list, but would not be able to resist
lurking in a forum where NFL, et al were not held accountable for their
ideas and delivery. Like you, I would be interested in watching how it
evolved over time.

Cheers,
Kirt