>this is a "gathering", granted it's a cybergathering but still a place to
>gather round the campfire and talk........about whatever you and others want
>to talk about.......and in order to be rainbow it is "free and open to all"
Ah...I see. But I thought that's what IRC and web chat rooms
were for.
>granted posting an add for an apt or selling things i don't consider
>appropriate at all but the only way to prevent those topics from appearing in
>the newsgroup, would be if it was a *moderated* newsgroup.
Or people could exercise some common sense and self-restraint.
Or they could ask themselves the following question before
posting:
How does what I would like to post enrich the
"rainbow experience?"
If the answer you get back is "It doesn't," then don't post it.
>>paul:
>> And, in the meantime, the signal-to-noise ratio is so bad that
>> it drives some listeners out because they simply don't have time
>> to wade through the off-topic stuff to find the on-topic stuff.
>yes, you are correct in that statement and it drove me off the subscription
>list for sure. now i just lurk and read what catches my interest because i
>don't have the time to wads through the rest that comes in via email.
I rest my case.
>>paul:
>> So be it. So let there be no posts on anything for a week or
>> two, or four, or however long it is. What's wrong with that?
>i really don't see this as an issue of right or wrong but one of personal
>choices. however, if folks choose to talk as if they were in front of that
>campfire what's wrong with that?
I don't think you answered my question.
>paul:
>> I'm going based on the original respondents' premise that all
>> posts somehow have a topic of love running through them [sic].
>> Discussion of of housing in Palo Alto, American Airlines, the
>> paranormal, et al, have nothing to do with that.
>the statement you refer to came from *one* brother's description and although
>many of us would agree with that description, it's not the only one. nor does
>he speak for all of us.
Did *that* person follo-up to my response? That person made the
statement, so let him/her defend it.
>> So you are apparantly willing to sacrifice having people here
>> (who leave because they simply don't have the time to wade
>> through all the off-topic posts) all for the sake of some
>> amorphous "freedom." Your're sacrificing strength in numbers
>> for a Tower of Babble. Not a wise trade, IMHO.
>am i willing to sacrifice people......hmmmmmmmmm since i'm one of those people
>that was sacrificed, it's hard to answer. i don't think it's a matter of an
>individual sacrificing anything. it is an anarchy and whether or not an
>anarchy can work will only be known if it's is free to try.
Well here my vote: it's not working.
- Paul