Having been involved in a number of fora on e-mail, I've realised that every
single one has one or two members who constantly bring up a particular
subject which arouses ire and frustration in other members. (With some,
indeed, I've wondered if that's the whole point, if they just enjoy the
One lefty forum had a member who simply would not, ever, be persuaded that,
while men may indeed suffer abuse at the hands of women, statistics quite
clearly show that the major problem is man-on-woman abuse. No matter what
evidence anyone brought to the table, he would simply revert to his old
point of view. (Curiously, this man - who is an attorney - is one of the
names on the famous list of thousands of 'Aids dissenters'.)
In the end, the forum, by unspoken consensus, simply stopped responding to
his posts on this issue. What was the point, after all? And he just quietly
went away, confirming my view that he was getting his kicks out of our
response to him.
Now I would not suggest that this is the case here, but I did decide some
time ago that I would no longer engage in comment on this one issue. The
commenters haven't given any evidence that persaudes me, and quite plainly,
none of what any other members provide persuades them. So why bother? I'd so
much rather save my energies for debates that actually inform, engage and
----- Original Message -----
From: "herb fox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested
> In my judgment the discussion about censorship is off the underlying
> problem. What is the mission of this list serve? Were there a clear
> statement of what is the purpose, intended participants, and intended
> audience of the list serve, the criteria for acceptable and unacceptable
> posts would be a slam dunk.
> Mitchel Cohen wrote:
> > Censorship is always tricky business.
> __________ NOD32 3327 (20080805) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.