On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:21 PM, wu wei wrote:
>> You don't know me
>
> No, I really do.
Then tell me more about myself...doc.
Your behaviour isn't as clever or as masking as you think
> it is.
It's intended to be involved, witty, and as informed as I can be on a
topic by someone I'm conversing
On 2012-10-17, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> Instead of "diabetic", try inserting the word "black" or "female".
>> There's no shame in those either, yet I think that the offensiveness
>> of either of those words used in that context should be obvious.
>
> To take it a little further, what if I said I got
On 10/18/12 6:43 AM, David Hutto wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
David,
While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
an obviously personal email containing CLEARL
On 10/18/2012 02:19 AM, rusi wrote:
>
>
> IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
> is as good for human networking as for computers.
>
>
The catch to that is that the software that is liberally accepting
anything is quite vulnerable to attacks. Windows has
On Oct 18, 11:27 am, David Hutto wrote:
> > [BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your
> > enemies; drive them crazy
>
> That only works if they're not already insane.
> Otherwise you're just prodding a cornered beast.
Usually but not necessarily
http://en.wikipedia.org/w
:
On 18 October 2012 02:19, rusi wrote:
> I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst
> against Steven.
Ah, I see. It was intended as a general request for politeness, but
yes, IIRC that was the exchange that prompted it.
> IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipe
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:19 AM, rusi wrote:
> On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus wrote:
>> :
>>
>> On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi wrote:
>>
>> > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
>> > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
>> > seem
On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus wrote:
> :
>
> On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
> > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
> > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> David,
>
> While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
> this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
> an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a
> public li
David,
While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a
public list without permission, without even anonymising it.
Not cool mat
:
On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi wrote:
> Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
> Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
> seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentenc
On 10/18/2012 12:42 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
freed
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> But you apparently want freedom of speech.
>
> I can't even begin to address this idiocy.
Then don't(your idiocy acknowledges your own misunderstanding),
because you don't want the freedom to speak publi
On Oct 18, 9:06 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> [a public response to a private email]
>
> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
> list.
Speaking generally I agree.
Speci
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
>
> Then why did you actively re-add the list as a recipient when I had
> removed it?
How was I supposed to know you removed it. Usually it's an acci
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
>> Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
>> freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do wi
On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> But you apparently want freedom of speech.
I can't even begin to address this idiocy.
> As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies
> off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and
> says ahah, see how they'
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>>> [a public response to a private email]
>>>
>>> I really don't appreciate you pushing
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei wrote:
>>> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
>>> permission?
>>>
>>> Are you really that fucking ignora
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
>> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
>
> I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me.
But yo
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> [a public response to a private email]
>>
>> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
>> exchange*, especially when it has not
On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
Then why did you actively re-add the list as a recipient when I had
removed it?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei wrote:
>> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
>> permission?
>>
>> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
>
> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just n
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> [a public response to a private email]
>
> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
> list.
Usually, etiquette d
On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me.
> Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community.
On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
[a public response to a private email]
I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
list.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei wrote:
> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
> permission?
>
> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
loophole in the law, but the first amendm
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, wu wei wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dwight Hutto
> wrote:
>>
>> It's intended to be involved, witty, and as informed as I can be
>
>
> You fail on every level here.
According to your opinion.
>
>>
>> No, I'm fine a s a monk until recently, when medi
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:53 am, Dwight Hutto wrote:
>> To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
>> goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?
>
> Ignorant racism is still racism.
No it's not, that 's why it's called ignorant...you just didn't
On Oct 18, 9:53 am, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
> goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?
Ignorant racism is still racism. Historical racism is still racism.
> It seems that we get too politically correct when we want to cherry
> pick a comm
On 18/10/2012 01:44, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
It came across to me as an offensive comment both to you and to people
with Asperger's that I would not tolerate generally. It is retracted
so I hold no ill will and don't want to dwell on it. In fact the very
quick retraction is a good thing to happen
On 18 October 2012 00:17, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:10:34 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2012 02:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:> On 17 October 2012 19:16,
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, wrote:
>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wr
On 10/17/2012 05:39 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
>> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
>> you diabetic?"
>
> If the question were sincer
:
On 17 October 2012 19:53, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
> goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?
"Racist" is a word with competing definitions, and intent is a factor
in some of them ... but yes, many people are offended by such use of
the
> Instead of "diabetic", try inserting the word "black" or "female".
> There's no shame in those either, yet I think that the offensiveness
> of either of those words used in that context should be obvious.
To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
goes to gypsy's. Was i
:
On 17 October 2012 19:17, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
[on Asperger's]
> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
> you diabetic?" There's no more shame in being Aspie than there is in
> being dia
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
> you diabetic?"
If the question were sincere, no. On the other hand, if it were a
rhetorica
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:10:34 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 02:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:> On 17 October 2012 19:16,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, wrote:
On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Except that you've made a 180-
> degree tu
On 10/17/2012 02:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:> On 17 October 2012 19:16, Chris
Angelico wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, wrote:
>>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Except that you've made a 180-
degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but appare
On 17 October 2012 19:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, wrote:
>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>>> didn't notice that *sending private emails*
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 12:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>[...]
> Ignore it *on the list*.
Quick addendum: I wrote earlier (in some post in this thread
I don't have time to dig up now) that the above possibly should
not apply when one is the t
On 10/17/2012 12:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,
rurpy wrote:
>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>>> didn't notice that *sending private email
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, wrote:
>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Except that you've made a 180-
>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>> "ignoring". So apparently
On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>> > dicks:
>>
>> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive an
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I disagree! I think occasional off-topic meta-arguments can be
> interesting and entertaining.
>
> Yow! Am I having a meta-meta-discussion yet?
Now we get to the meat of the discussion...
It's like I was explaining to one of my brothers t
On 2012-10-17, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 11:47 PM, Kristen J. Webb wrote:
>
>> I will say that my perusal of this list has been
>> informative. I also receive more email from this
>> list than any other I subscribe to.
>
> You could instead access it as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org. Th
On 2012-10-17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:25:38 -0700, alex23 wrote:
>
>> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion when
>> that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.
>
> +1 QOTW
>
> It makes me laugh when newcomers to this group stick
On 17/10/2012 07:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And more importantly, welcome to democracy -- this is not a dictatorship,
Putting my pedantic hat on but there are few if any true democracies in
the world. Most governments are run on (mis)representative lines. Which
reminds me I must restart my
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> In an ideal world, we'd all agree on what counts as acceptable behaviour,
> and stick to it, and discuss nothing but Python coding problems. But we
> don't live in an idea world, and there are disagreements and people
> behaving badly, and
On Oct 17, 11:15 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2:43 pm, rusi wrote:
>
> > Let me try to restate alex without the barb.
>
> Do you offer this service for hire? :)
Hmm now thats an idea…
Are you offering to hire? [Considering how many jobs Ive changed,
never know whats next!]
Rusi
--
http://blo
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:25:38 -0700, alex23 wrote:
> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion when
> that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.
+1 QOTW
It makes me laugh when newcomers to this group stick their head up to
chastise us for arguing about th
On 10/16/2012 11:47 PM, Kristen J. Webb wrote:
I will say that my perusal of this list has been
informative. I also receive more email from this
list than any other I subscribe to.
You could instead access it as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org. That
keeps posts isolated and you only download
On Oct 17, 9:25 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" wrote:
>
> > It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
>
> Yet you then chose to participate in a discussion about it. Because
> that's what people do to discuss suitable behaviour.
>
> I really don't get peo
"Kristen J. Webb" writes:
> What the f**k! I thought that subscribing to a list would promote
> education, enlightenment, and a shared communal effort to make things
> better for things (python) related.
Yes, that's the focus of this thread: how best to engage in a shared
communal effort to make
On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" wrote:
> Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
> anything to do with python, it's promotion,
> or resolving anything related to making it
> one of the most exciting languages I have
> ever seen since C?
Python is more than the language, it's the communi
As a casual observer of this list (and many others)
I can only say...
What the f**k! I thought that subscribing to
a list would promote education, enlightenment,
and a shared communal effort to make things better
for things (python) related.
It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this
On Oct 16, 9:27 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 10:36 PM, alex23 wrote:> On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
> >> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
> >> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
>
> > Ag
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>> > dicks:
>>
>> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly e
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:45:04 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dwight "call me David, but I can't be bothered changing my signature"
> Hutto's behaviour.
I withdraw this dig at David Hutto. It was unnecessary, and it turns out,
wrong as he has now changed his signature.
--
Steven
--
http://mai
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>> > dicks:
>
> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
> totally subjective word
As opposed to "trol
First of all, I believe this is the *perfect* post to try and
keep discussion calm. If trusted members cannot keep a good tone of voice
and have an understanding (even if disagreeing) stance on a post
about aggressive language, it does not shine brightly as a message to
others.
On 16 October 2012
On 10/16/2012 02:17 PM, Prasad, Ramit wrote:> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
>>
>> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> > same.
>>
>> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they a
On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and
almost totally subjective word that I would not use in a
rational discussion. Perhaps you were trying to be amusin
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
>
> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> > same.
>
> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
>
> How should somebody distinguis
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> same.
If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for actin
On 10/14/2012 10:36 PM, alex23 wrote:> On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
>> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
>> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
>
> Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "
On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
and *criticising* their *comments* a
On 10/14/2012 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:> Zero Piraeus
writes:
>[...]
> What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
> low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
> clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
> discussio
On 10/13/2012 09:46 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> OT. you obviously has no clue what agressive behavior mean. :-)
>
> So please continue with the passive tone saying nothing relevant
> and login to facebook.
There's a saying in English. Hit pigeons flutter. I have not been
impressed with your
:
On 14 October 2012 17:58, Ben Finney wrote:
> What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
> low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
> clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
> discussion – that such hostility i
On Oct 14, 3:39 pm, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> I'm not a know it all, but when attacked personally I defend myself,
> and those can turn into flame wars.
I'm not wanting this to turn into another round of flames, but I do
want to highlight that there's a big difference between being asked to
moderate
Zero Piraeus writes:
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my
I'm not a know it all, but when attacked personally I defend myself,
and those can turn into flame wars.
Your plonks are irrelevant in terms of an argument ytou shouldn't
participate in.
These things can get nasty quick.
So if you have virgin eyes, then kill file it, but I like to think
Ioffer l
>
> A response to someone who quotes a trollbot just stating "*Username* is a
> trollbot." where *no* further correspondence occurs doesn't seem like
> trollbotbait to me, and it makes it easy for people to know who's been
> warned.
>
If properly trimmed, so there is no reference to the troll/bot
On 13 October 2012 22:35, Tim Delaney wrote:
> On 14 October 2012 08:22, Roel Schroeven wrote:
>
>> Zero Piraeus schreef:
>>
>> :
>>>
>>> Not sure exactly how to put this ...
>>>
>>> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
>>> years could probably be counted withou
On 14 October 2012 08:22, Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Zero Piraeus schreef:
>
> :
>>
>> Not sure exactly how to put this ...
>>
>> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
>> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
>> so perhaps I have no ri
Zero Piraeus schreef:
:
Not sure exactly how to put this ...
I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
increase in aggressive langua
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Zero Piraeus wrote:
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language
On 13 October 2012 16:21, Zero Piraeus wrote:
> :
>
> Not sure exactly how to put this ...
>
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:21:28 -0400
Zero Piraeus wrote:
> :
>
> Not sure exactly how to put this ...
>
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've
:
Not sure exactly how to put this ...
I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm p
81 matches
Mail list logo
