On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:43:22PM +0100, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> Seen the heat I'm getting for my shorthand remark, in my own defence > I feel I need to clarify what I meant. I think that however noble > Nick asking the list about policy looks, I (as in me, myself, as a > person ;o) ) am just not convinced that this would also imply that > Nick will (not sure of the correct tense I need to use here) refrain > from implementing any policy he wants to, even if a lot of people > disagree. That is how I understood your comment the first time. And I think Julia did too, as she explained that if it is a matter with real life consequences for Nick, then he is NOT acting unethically by not following majority opinion in favor of his own "ass". I am noticing a pattern here. When people disagree with you, you have been assuming that they didn't understand what you meant, rather than that they truly disagree with you. Also, you seemed concerned that people expressed strong disagreement with your opinion. If you want to express an opinion, don't you think you should be prepared to take some "heat" if people want to express their contrary opinions? Just a few thoughts. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion and "I think I'm entitled to it". > I (as in me, myself as a person ;o)) don't like more rules and > regulations, so I feel it isn't a good idea. But as I said, it is > Nick's list so he _can_ do whatever he likes. A legal notice is very much a rule or regulation. I haven't seen you expressing discontent at those. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
