Frank wrote in small part: > Please forgive me, but Robert has a long, long history of > interjecting unrelated and frivolous crap when I was originally > trying often to bring into focus serious commentary on issues. > This isn't at all the first time that I have brought up such > matters concerning Robert's behavior in responding to serious > posts.
This is a really low, insulting blow. You set yourself up as judge and jury of whatever we should be thinking about, as if you're the one who gets to decide for all of us what's important. I started the thread here (by quoting and responding to content from elsewhere), where for months the weekly subscriber update and the monthly rules post had been making up the majority of traffic. And after I started the serious discussion, you blame me for "injecting unrelated and frivolous crap" because I didn't feel like responding to most of what you put into the subthread? If you want "unrelated and frivolous crap", how about your annual Xmas message? How about your dissertations on the minor arcana of personalities in the Libertarian Party in part of Idaho? Why don't you just ignore material that doesn't interest you, the way the rest of us do? That seems to be a problem of yours, the whole concept of selective response, because for a long time you complained when I edited your posts to respond only to those portions I had responses to -- which practically everyone else considers GOOD netiquette, rather than reproducing fully long passages -- and worse, the fact that my responses tended to be much shorter than your posts, which practically everyone else considers a virtue, not a vice. Sure, I cross-post stuff here. I see there's very little traffic, and, knowing the "Northwest" to have been a relic of the history of this forum, your having long aspired to worldwide relevance, I select just items which I think will attract the widest interest, rather than spamming you with parochial content. But I never think it's anyone's DUTY to respond to every, or even any, point therein. > The U.S. economy is driven mainly by imports What does that mean, "driven"? > and isn't > producing a damn thing that the world can't find elsewhere much > cheaper and maybe even of better quality. Software, wine, cigarets, movies, TV shows, new drugs, bath foam ( http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html ), pet breeds, watercraft, microarray devices, photovoltaics, proximity fireworks, clothing designs, nonlethal weapons. > Secondly, our > regularly and tax climate create an imploding effect that we can > no longer be competitive for very much longer on the world > economic horizon. Except that usually, everywhere else is worse. Just one example I learned of recently: In the EU, cosmetics and toiletries need to be certified by experts as safe before they can be marketed, while in the USA small timers and semi-hobbyists manufacturing in their kitchens can get off the ground with new products without such expensive paperwork. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
