[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Removals from the list
Now that John has weighed in with his reasoning, I would cast my support
behind his decision.
Discussion is good, debate is good, criticism is good, it keeps us all on
our proverbial toes.
In my own personal world view I find that academia does not always learn the
lesson of respect nor do we lay people. I have found that respectful
disagreement can come for many sources. It has to do with how one is raised
as opposed to how learned one is.
And finally, rules/guidelines without penalty are neither rules nor
guidelines but a formula for anarchy & chaos. The punishment suited the
crime so to speak.
From: Joe Erkes [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Removals from the list
I agree with Tim. The creative tension between the "speculative
and the hard-nosed academics on this list has been very productive.
balance is lost, the list will suffer grievously.
Rather than striking folks off the list, why not re-affirm the
rules. And why
not suggest that ALL participants try to separate their opinions
egos. After all, criticizing someone's position is NOT the same as
their person. Academics learn this distinction early in their
careers, (or are
driven out with their tails between their legs), but for the rest of
population, it's a problem.
Tolerance, cousins... tolerance!
Tim Wallace-Murphy wrote:
> Would John please clarify, off-list if he so wishes, who has been
> the list and why?.
> I need this information, in the light of recent criticisms, in
> assess any usefullnes that might accrue from my continuing
> this list.
> Best wishes
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html