LOL!!!
Er, thankyou.
There are a couple of thing you should know, Mr Hermann. First this:
there aren't a lot of rules here, beyond the usual ones that don't
(or at least shouldn't) need spelling out - ordinary Netiquette, the
universal rules of social discourse, that discussion should be
even-handed and honest.
There are though two rules that are enforced:
NO TOPIC COPS.
NO CALLS FOR RESTRICTED DISCUSSION.
You've only been here a couple of days and you're laying down the law
for a global, multi-cultural membership of more than 2300 people.
Would you shove your way into a strange bar in a foreign city and
give everyone orders about what they may and may not discuss? Maybe
you would, but you won't do it here. It's a discussion list, not a
less-discussion list.
"Political" in the context you use it in invariably means "stuff I
don't agree with". That you add terms of contempt such as
"blathering" and "inane" would confirm that. Messages have subject
lines, nobody's forcing you to read anything. Calling for censorship
(that's what you're doing) of content you don't agree with is not
acceptable here.
This is a Biofuel list, not a biodiesel list, and that's not just a
quibble. On a list devoted purely to biodiesel your ruling on what's
on- and off-topic and your demands that it be restricted to "LOGICAL
TECHNOLOGICAL DISCUSSION" on how to make and use the fuel cheaply
might make a little sense, though I doubt it. That you presume to
make such demands, after two days on a four-year-old list with
thousands of members, is incredibly arrogant. [I guess you're right
Robert.] Biofuels, the subject of this list, is a much more
wide-ranging subject than just how-to-make-biodiesel (though this is
a good place for that too) and with such an international list
membership what has "nothing to do with biofuels" is very much a
matter of opinion. For instance, your rather odd opinion that "how
the fuel, or how MUCH of it gets burned, or by whom, or for what
purpose" is irrelevant to biofuels discussions is not one with which
many members would agree, if any. But you seek to impose it anyway.
It's been found many times that what might appear at first to be
digressions end up yielding on-topic information that would not
otherwise have arisen. These are mature people, they know how to
behave, when they do stray truly off-topic it seldom goes too far,
they don't need a list-nanny bossing them around. So the discussion
here is open. This issue has been discussed here many times in the
past and that's a decision reached by the majority of the list
membership: open discussions, and no topic-cops. And it's my job to
enforce that decision, which I do. You get one warning, and this is
it. Ignoring it can have only one consequence, your departure.
Take heed - there are a lot of Americans here but, valued members
though they are, they're not in the majority and most of them will
disagree with you anyway. You're not the first to make the objections
you've made, we've seen it all before. They invariably stem from the
relatively small number of Americans who cannot abide any views that
differ from their own. Their response is always exactly the same,
just as, I'm truly sorry to predict with such confidence, while truly
hoping to be wrong, yours will be. If that's going to be the case, I
suggest you save yourself and everyone else the bother and go
somewhere else. There are various local biodiesel lists where you
might be more at home.
>At 3:15 AM 4/27/04, Keith Addison wrote:
> >
> >Oh-ho, here we go - guns and abortions, LOL! Here's some more
> >polarisation for you Robert, not that you wanted it. Now I guess the
> >rest of us get to sit back and gaze in wonder at the American
> >dysfunction in action.
> >
> >Greg, those one million women who just marched in Washington all
> >reckon you're wrong, seems they feel rather strongly about it.
>
>I never offered an opinion as to how I felt on the issue--nor do I intend
>to--
Right, you've left it a complete mystery how you feel about it. :-)
>but the parallels to the OFF TOPIC issue that was raised here are, at
>least, amusing.
But you raised it. Ed's post was about motor accidents, and the
context is the US CAFE fuel economy standards, which have been
severely hampered by industry front-group spin that better fuel
economy means more dangerous cars and higher road accident tolls. US
average fuel economy is now worse than it was 15 years ago. Fuel
economy is an essential factor in biofuels issues, especially
biodiesel issues, for quite a few reasons which should be obvious to
you (but apparently aren't). Ed provided US gun-death figures as one
of several (valid) comparisons. So far so good, all nice and on-topic
even by quite a narrow definition. You took issue with the gun-death
figures and introduced the subject of abortion, and now you're
blathering ('fraid so), rather inanely, that it's all off-topic.
>The entire purpose of my post--and set-up--on the
>issue--was to tweak those here who want to use the list for political
>blathering rather than LOGICAL TECHNOLOGICAL DISCUSSION !! I could care
>LESS (in this venue) how the fuel, or how MUCH of it gets burned, or by
>whom, or for what purpose !! The questions and discussion HERE ought to be
>entirely about HOW to make the fuel economically and HOW TO USE IT RELIABLY
>(without tearing up one's equipment). The rest is, and should remain
>irrelevant.
If you want discussion on those issues, first they're constantly
ongoing, and nothing's to stop you starting such discussions youself,
in fact there's every encouragement to do so. Instead you choose to
object to other discussions, and rather incoherently, for all your
talk of "logic".
>Solely to point out thelack of logic on the part of those who would
>politicize:
>
>1. Would you deny that an unborn fetus is alive ??
>
>2. Would you deny that an unborn fetus is, in many respects, human ??
>
>3. I rather doubt that any of the women involved in the march you mentioned
>would deny that they want to keep the (supposedly constitutional) 'right'
>to have an unborn fetus that they are carrying rendered dead--that is to
>say 'killed'--and removed from their body with the assistance of the doctor
>of their choice. Would you deny this ??
>
>4. Like it or not, many of the women at that march, along with MANY others,
>have quite likely 'terminated a pregnancy' (a term which is essentially
>synonomous with 'killed an unborn fetus') because it was an 'inconvenience'
>to their life plans. To think otherwise would be beyond naive.
>
>5. Where is the self-righteous indignation over the above described
>'convenience killings' from those (on this list) who claim that we (the US)
>are killing Iraqi 'innocents' because they, essentially, present an
>'inconvenience' to our driving habits???
>
>6. Are the Iraqi innocents in question somehow different from fetuses
>killed for convenience simply because they managed to pass all the way
>through some woman's birth canal, and therefore worthy of some list
>members' concern ??
>
>7. If you are so ready to judge the motive in one (the Iraqi) case, why do
>you shrink from judging the motive in the other (abortion for convenience)
>case ???
I think we can leave all that to speak for itself. To attempt to
discuss it with you would clearly be futile, as well as irrelevant.
>If we are going to have individuals here who are consistently off topic
>with inane political blather, let's at least demand that those who do this
>be consistent per the rules of classical logic !! After all, the proper use
>of logic is ESSENTIAL to improving any technology, so this effort might
>even help those here who seem to be without any grab a clue or two !!
>
>Or--preferably, to me at least, let's just stay ON TOPIC, and try to
>discuss matters which MIGHT further the technology the list is directed
>toward !! There is some good potential in this stuff, what it needs to
>progress further into the mainstream is support from folks who apply LOGIC
>to it, not emotion !!
Listen, newbie, there's nearly 34,000 messages in the archives here,
and another 4,500 in the other one, contributed over four years by
many of the leading figures worldwide in the biofuels field, among
others; this list has been at the forefront of pushing technology
development to quite new levels compared with four years ago, as well
as its widespread use, plus advocacy, lobbying, education and very
much more, and if you'd taken sensible pause to look first before
leaping in with your own "inane blather" maybe you'd've found good
reason not only to acknowledge it but to concede that maybe it's not
all airy-fairy pie-in-the-sky crap held aloft by logic-free
emotionalism, which you demonstrate rather convincingly that you're
not exactly innocent of.
>And, BTW--was the similarity between the statement made by a person here
>earlier to the effect of : 'I despise Israel, but I worship with a number
>of Jews!' and a statement to the effect of 'I despise the gangsta
>rap/ebonics culture, but some my best friends are black!' lost on everyone
>else here ?? Racists come in many colors, you know !! Using a political
>thesis to support covert racism is as old as the human race. Claiming to be
>sweet and innocent as a justification for such a position is, likely,
>equally old. Probably been with us as long as 'sex for money and/or favors'
>has !!
Robert's a racist and a Jew-hater is he. Uh-huh. I doubt Robert will
deign to defend himself against such base mud-slinging, but I'll say
a few things about it. You put it in quotes, while hedging your bets
with "to the effect of", but that doesn't hide the fact that you've
twisted it to your own ends and won't serve you as an excuse. This is
what Robert said:
> First of all, I honestly believe that most Americans simply do not
>see their views as polarized or extreme. I have often tried to educate
>some of my fellow citizens on the hypocricy of the Israel policy, for
>instance, and I'm met with highly charged language like:
>
> "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East", or "Israel has
>always been a staunch U.S. ally."
>
> While these statements are true, they do not address the core
>issue. If I press further, pointing out that Israel routinely denies
>civil rights to the Palestinians under its control, the discussion
>quickly degrades into a heated diatribe concerning terrorism and the
>right of a sovereign state to defend itself against enemies that seek
>its destruction. So what are the Palestinians supposed to do?
>
> In short, once the issues become complex, all hope of rational,
>intellectual interchange evaporates and the polarism you've described
>surfaces quickly. I've been called a Jew hater, though as a Sabbatarian
>Christian I actually worship with Christian Jews. Any further attempt
>on my part to illustrate the difference between individual Jews and the
>nation state of Israel normally brings on something like:
>
> "You are a traitor to your own country!"
>
> A traitor? Really? Dissent is my birthright as an American, yet
>when I exercise my right to disagree with national policy, the very
>polarization you have described above is used as a weapon against me!
>
> So much for free speech in "the land of the free and the home of the
>brave. . ."
"... to the effect of"? Maybe you succeed in kidding yourself. I said
at the beginning that it shouldn't need spelling out that discussion
should be even-handed and honest. This accusation of yours is
neither. Withdraw it and apologise to both Robert and the list, don't
cavill about it, and be quick about it.
Keith Addison
Biofuel list owner.
>Greg
> >
> >http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18507
> >Pro-Choice March Largest in History
> >
> >Well, that's just a few of the American women. Trouble is young
> >master Bush has gone and revived the Reagan-era global gag rule that
> >denies U.S. funds to international family planning groups that use
> >their own money for abortion counselling, services or lobbying even
> >though it's legal in their own countries.
> >
> >I always wondered what sort of keyhole view it took to call it
> >"pro-life", blithely giving a Nelson's eye to all the women who get
> >killed and the foetuses too because they get left with no other
> >"choice" than those helpful back-alley ladies who poke around with a
> >bent clothes-hanger. You think it's a myth, Greg?
> >
> >Check out all the women in this photograph:
> >
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/images/20031105-1_p354
> >10-21-515h.html
> >
> >Ogres.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> 1. Your handgun related death number is grossly inflated.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. The number killed in car wrecks annually is, incredibly,
>only a small
> >> >> fraction of the number killed by medical doctors each year !!
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Greg
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
