Ken wrote (but the Joni-onlies won't see his post): > Intentional omission of the NJC tag because you wish to disseminate > information about what you deem important is breaking the rules, > folks.
Vince agreed about The 3 Great Letters: > but we must respect the Joni Onlys. If there is ****any**** doubt, > make it NJC. Hmm. I see the point, but I believe that sometimes it's permissible to break the rules. It doesn't happen very often, and when it does it's usually for a good reason (in the mind of the sender, at least), and it's almost always preceded by something like the first few lines of Claudia's recent post: > Dear friends. I apologize for the missing NJC, but I feel many of you > might like to know about this site since peace concerns us all, > regardless of political beliefs. I don't think it was Claud's intention for the responses to her post (supportive or otherwise) to sully the Joni-only list. Indeed, it's the responsibility of each of us to gauge the content of our posts and replies and add the NJC tag if warranted. Personally, were I subscribed to the Joni-only list, I would appreciate the chance to know the information offered by Claudia, Kate, and others. I'll reiterate that those kinds of posts don't occur that often. It doesn't bother me to delete or skip over them. Maybe I'm being a little too "Zen", and perhaps I'm in the minority on this. Opinions? Lori the Pollster ~
