I think Kathryn meant this to go privately, but it went to the list by mistake. She makes good points I'd be glad to respond to.
> Dear Mike, > > It's your list, so whatever rules you want you get. Yeah, for better or worse! <sigh> > As a formerly trained scientist (even if I don't get to play in that > sand box anymore) this sort of fearmongering (culling the herd, etc) > really sets my last nerve on fire. I bet you meant "formally" trained! <grin> I spent 18 years as a research technician in the physical sciences. I can relate. Most of what passes for "information" on the 'net is unsupported speculation. A lot of it attempts to masquerade as "scientific" but doesn't come even close for anybody with a little training. Yet a lot of people are not knowledgable enough and will be scared by it. > There are so many worthwhile things that threaten us that focusing > attention on this sort of thing dilutes legitimate discussion. It > distracts attention that could rightly go to other really important > issues. Issues that we stand a real chance of protecting ourselves and > our families from if we have a head's up. Yep, and that gets right to crux of *my* decision process. Legitimate? It all boils down to, where should I draw that line? > Like whether or not the swine flu is a 1918 type of flu, for example. > Jury is still out on that. There are those interesting theories that aspirin, of all things, might have been responsible for many of the deaths in 1918. Folks killed their fevers, which would normally have slowed down the virus, which then proliferated and killed them. > That is just one small example. The economy and what we can be doing > right now to help protect ourselves; the list goes on and on. It gets tough to figure out what to do when you're not sure what's really happening. That leads to the endless back and forth over conspiracies and evil plots, versus stupiditiy and corruption, versus don't worry, be happy, everything's gonna be okay. Some of that is going to bleed into the discussion, no matter what we do. It's just a matter of keeping it small, overall. > I realize the irony of my having pointed attention to it instead of > letting it go. It would have just slipped under the radar if I had > not said anything, probably; or maybe it would have become yet another > round of crazy stuff. If it had done the latter, it'd have been a case of my neglect. What I want is for folks to not respond to the OT and marginal stuff, and give me a heads-up when you think things are getting too far astray. > Fine for somebody's sci-fi shelf, but for a what I had considered an > experimental science list? Read any of David Weber's stuff? Good sci-fi... <grin> Basically, my policy of prohibiting politics, except as it relates to colloidal silver and important alternative health issues, is my best effort to avoid having to arbitrarily decree what is and is not "legitimate" within the broad spectrum of beliefs that exist in our members. On occasion I'll ask somebody to tone it down a bit in deference to not scaring off newcomers, but it's mainly a matter of keeping the volume low enough overall that the more conventional tends to balance the farther out, and folks can choose what to listen to. I do that by trying to keep up with the discussion, which can be a challenge sometimes, and by watching my in-box for personal contacts from people with complaints or comments about what's going on. That's where you guys and gals can support my efforts. > Maybe because things are so uncertain Out There right now we are more > willing to suspend disbelief, and some of us (ie: me) are more on edge. > Sigh; like I need an edge to go over- "what edge- is there an edge > there (yaaaahhhhhh......thunk)" . <hehehe> I went over that edge a long time ago, I'm afraid. It started with lies I learned I was being told by the mainstream media about specific issues I'd never looked at closely before. It progressed to recognizing the disfunctionality of much of our "system." Somewhere along the way, I found out there was a whole other world of opinions and beliefs that, while labelled "fringe" by agencies of the aforementioned mainstream system, exhibited every sign of being dangerously real, just like colloidal silver has turned out to be. (Dangerous, as in a hazard to my complacency...) So I guess you can say I'm more prepared to "suspend disbelief" about things I'd never have taken seriously before I went down the rabbit hole 10 or 15 years ago. I know there are fewer things I'm willing to say are impossible now than I would have in the beginning. > I'm happy you at least saw that I was trying to resolve it. Oh, yes. I am much happier when folks make the conscious decision to de- escalate and make things better. Thank you, thank you, thank you! > Best Wishes, > > Kathryn > > PS- If you think this is suitable for listreading, you can send it on. I think you took care of that just fine! <grin> Peace, Mike D. [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [mdev...@eskimo.com ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
