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.
Humbly,
Dana
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Erkes [SMTP:erkesjoe@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:26 AM
To: sinclair@quarterman.org
Subject: Re: Removals from the list
John,
I agree with Tim. The creative tension between the "speculative
historians"
and the hard-nosed academics on this list has been very productive.
If this
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
from their
egos. After all, criticizing someone's position is NOT the same as
criticizing
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
the
population, it's a problem.
Tolerance, cousins... tolerance!
Best regards,
Joe
Tim Wallace-Murphy wrote:
> Would John please clarify, off-list if he so wishes, who has been
struck off
> the list and why?.
>
> I need this information, in the light of recent criticisms, in
order to
> assess any usefullnes that might accrue from my continuing
subscription to
> this list.
>
> Best wishes
>
> tim
>
sinclair@quarterman.org
http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html