Much better to leave it open than to try to restrict it. A great general principle, in my opinion: trying to shut people up is almost always destructive, while allowing opinions to be aired and discussed in an adult, respectful manner is almost always productive.
Adrian --- On Wed, 17/6/09, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] FAO SurpriseShan2 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 10:34 AM Thankyou Michelle, indeed so, well put. >David, > >I have subscribed for some time now without much, if any >contribution. There is a variety of topics posted here for >discussion. Many of which I delete without reading, but I am >thankful these people are allowed to post and share their knowledge >and/or concern for things they think we should be aware of. Many of >these readers/contributors have a niche in a certain interest or >topic that would take me lifetimes of reading, research, and >understanding to acquire. I am thankful they are allowed to post. > >On occasion I feel it necessary to speak up and defend the posts >because I have learned so much from this website. I am thankful for >the broad and specific, on topic and off topic, and the ever >enriching environment that is encouraged. > >Michele > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:25:24 +0200 >> Subject: [Biofuel] FAO SurpriseShan2 >> >> > > With all due respect, while I'm sure your posts are of interest >to us all, I'm not sure of the relevance to the raison d'etre of >this list. It's a sustainability list really, and so it must deal with non-sustainability too, and there are all these grey areas where the various issues merge into each other. Energy affects just about everything, lots of dots to join up, you can start just about anywhere, it's all connected. Where one draws the relevance line depends on your point of view, and with a worldwide membership not many people would draw it in the same place. (That's part of its strength.) Much better to leave it open than to try to restrict it. There was a lot of fighting about this eight or nine years ago, and that was the consensus in the end. It's in the list rules: "No calls for restricted discussion. It's a discussion list, not a less-discussion list." No topic-cops. <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70818.html> [Biofuel] List rules With open discussion nobody's deprived of anything, but trying to keep the discussions strictly on-topic would deprive those who don't see it that way. Also, the highly useful list archives would have much less depth than it's accumulated through open discussion. Anyway, nobody's forced to read anything, messages have subject titles, if you're not interested don't read them. > > Personally, it's like a flashback to all my mother's emails from >Dr Briffa. At least I could tell her to stop. :-) Or just not read them. See <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg21651.html>. All best Keith > > No offence meant, >> > > David _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090617/bb7faf08/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
