>It would seem that one moderator (Bill) has threatened to take action I have absolutely no idea on what - I musta missed those emails that had some impugning :)
>What if the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about? >Save the earth. It's the only planet with chocolate. Toooo right :) Here in New Zealand we have a thing called a Crunchie Bar - (Chocolate covered hokey-pokey)! In case anyone thinks I'm lying - http://www.silverfernz.com/prodView.asp?idproduct=389 Now as for saving the Earth, there is no point unless there are those that enjoy chocolate. I have it on excellent authority that chocolate doesn't exist anywhere else and we humans are the only (intelligent?) life-form that it doesn't poison in the known Universe! Saving the Earth is also important as we are 1 example in how many? How to extrapolate from our existence, the likelihood of other places that might be livable for us humans? For our Galaxy lets eliminate any star too close to the galactic centre (50%), and any star not within 95% of our suns mass (99% or more of the rest). The odds of planet formation similar to our Solar System (80% further reduction). This gives us a calculation like, 200,000,000,000 * 1/2 * 1/99 * 1/80 That gives us 12,626,262 possible stars with planets, that could be: The right size, Have the right mixture of elements, be the right distance from there sun, have a stable orbit and spin (ie have a large moon thing :) - the odds for which we have little data. I hope it is better than 1 in 12 million! Either way with 200,000,000,000 other galaxies, the odds would need to be extremely pessimistic to be less than 99% in favour of life somewhere else. Regards Robert McCurdy "What is the 'R' word? - I need to know!" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:34 PMSubject: The meaning of Signature lines, list member behavior, and everythingOn Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:24:09 -0400, WIN-HOME automatic digest system<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>It would seem that one moderator (Bill) has threatened to take action >against those who "further comments along these lines will result in the >commentors going on review, at a minimum.">I suppose it was meant for those who comment on the "R" word.>I certainly don't want to be "disciplined" for inadvertently using the >wrong signature.You weren't.>Maybe we should ask Ben.>What say ye, Ben..........in relation to signature lines? My apologies to the late Douglas Adams for cribbing his famous book title.The problem here is not the signature line itself, but what happenedafterwards between a few list members. The rules for this list are fairlyrelaxed, but one ironclad rule is that posters may NOT impugn (attack) thecharacter of another person publicly on the list. It is that event thatprompted Bill to react quickly to cool that down, and he was rapidly supportedby 2 other moderators. Mostly that kind of "timeout" is handled privately, off-list. Sometimes, ashere, it is necessary to do it in a more public way. It is uncivil behavioron the list that may subject someone to discipline, not signature lines. On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:34:13 -0400, Wayne Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Ben has always backed up his moderators so asking him will get you >absolutely no where. I'd like to think that the moderators all have >good sense & we shall continue to back each other just as Ben does.I back all of the moderators because they are a good team and they do a greatjob at keeping the list atmosphere relaxed yet lively, informative andon-topic.>It's time to move on.I couldn't say it better myself. The amount of on-list and off-list trafficon this so far has been far more than the matter deserves.Remember, the answer is 42. -- ---------------------------------------- The WIN-HOME mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
