Let me give you again my interpretation about the function of pen-l. First and formost, it is to give space to people to use their energies to further progressive causes. Yes, I know that we have no unanimity. The Clinton/Nader debate is a case in point. I do not recall how old pen-l is, but I suspect that it is now going on 10 years. I have intervened administratively less than a dozen times. Some of these interventions have been used to cool tempers as things became personal. Others to ask people to stop communicating in a particular way. Why should not anybody be allowed to say whatever they want here? Someone, Jim Craven?, mentioned the first ammendment. Whatever the first ammendment says, we have precious little space to address issues that come up in our discussions. Many, many people have told me that they enjoyed pen-l, but they signed off because of the excess of chatter. Some is fun chatter. I makes pen-l lively and enjoyable. Some is a waste of time. Many of those who have exited fell to a sort of Gresham's law: worthless speech can drive out good speech. Other people pay for pen-l by the message. Here again, non-constructive speech imposes a cost. Most of the complaints about pen-l behavior come to me directly. The case of Mrs. Becker was an exception. I try to act on these complaints in the way I feel is best. I apologize if my seemingly unilateral actions seem out of line. Let me know if you think that a different sort of policy would be better. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
