The Logic Off Topic list

As I mentioned in a recent post, I have always assumed the L-OT list 
to be loosely music related. In fact I wouldn't have a problem at all 
with threads talking about politics *that directly relate to music*, 
e.g. new laws that would effect the music industry in any way. IMHO 
this just isn't the place for a general world history class, or even 
for people to talk about the best chocolate chip cookie recipie 
they've ever had. My mistake was thinking this was clear to everyone -
after this big issue came up I realized that "list philosphy" was 
never said anywhere in big bold letters for all to read, so I can 
understand why some of you didn't realize that's what was intended 
for this list (by some of us at least). 

The last poll is very inconclusive -- "yes" politics is only ahead 
of "no" politics by 3 votes, but 3 people unsubscribed on the second 
day of the big political thread who probably would have voted "no", 
so IMO it's still extremely even. After discussing this with the 
other admins, we've decided to let all of you vote on this issue to 
decide. 

The question is not just about politics: Does the Logic-OT list need 
to stay somewhat focused on things related to music (not just music 
production, but e.g. Dennis's interesting thread a while back about 
Japanese music, etc.)... or should we allow all "way off topic" 
subject at all to be posted here? The poll will conclude on October 
27th, and we will go with whatever the majority of people vote for. 

Also please note that *if* people vote to keep the list related to 
music, we *will* create another list for Logic users to discuss 
anything and everything they want, even if its way off topic. This 
would save people uninterested in non-music-related threads from 
having to sort through way off topic threads, and it would give 
everyone interested in political or other way off topic subjects to 
freely discuss them with other Logic users without any moderation at 
all. 

I'm creating the poll now, so you should receive another email right 
after this one with the link to the poll. 

All the best,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus

--- In logic-ot@y..., "Jeremy Martin" <sadus@l...> wrote:
> Also please note that *if* people vote to keep the list related to 
> music, we *will* create another list for Logic users to discuss 
> anything and everything they want, even if its way off topic. This 
> would save people uninterested in non-music-related threads from 
> having to sort through way off topic threads, and it would give 
> everyone interested in political or other way off topic subjects to 
> freely discuss them with other Logic users without any moderation at 
> all. 

seems like a reasonable suggestion, but isn't that already 
happening with the L-POL? there's just too little traffic here to 
worry so much about it. Do you really want to moderate another 
list besides the LUG? I guess you really like moderating. Why 
not just go into Politics if you want to be a censor?

teddybut

> --- In logic-ot@y..., "Jeremy Martin" <sadus@l...> wrote:
> > Also please note that *if* people vote to keep the list related 
> > to  music, we *will* create another list for Logic users to 
> > discuss  anything and everything they want, even if its way off 
> > topic. 

--- In logic-ot@y..., "kumpy105" <teddybut@e...> wrote:
> seems like a reasonable suggestion, but isn't that already 
> happening with the L-POL? there's just too little traffic here to 
> worry so much about it. Do you really want to moderate another 
> list besides the LUG? I guess you really like moderating. Why 
> not just go into Politics if you want to be a censor?


L-POL was just a temporary solution so those of you who wanted to 
continue the political talks could do so until we decided on this 
issue. If people do vote for that option we'd probably create a 
different list that's not specifically named after politics, such as 
L-Pub or L-WOT (way off topic), something more generalized like that. 

Even if people vote that way, this list would still stay unmoderated, 
we would just ask people only to post music-related things here. We'd 
re-moderate the list if we had to, e.g. if any huge way off topic 
threads came up again, though hopefully it wouldn't come to that 
again anytime soon. 

Take it easy,
Jeremy

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 04:47 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:

> The last poll is very inconclusive -- "yes" politics is only ahead
> of "no" politics by 3 votes, but 3 people unsubscribed on the second
> day of the big political thread who probably would have voted "no",
> so IMO it's still extremely even. After discussing this with the
> other admins, we've decided to let all of you vote on this issue to
> decide.
>
Jeremy

I think you are probably well intended, but I urge you to re-read the 
paragraph quoted above and reflect.

If you were a lawyer in court your supposition would be ruled out of 
order. For example you are asserting facts not in evidence, which is to 
say the opinions of people who did not vote, and who have not directly 
communicated their opinions to the list.

Worse than that: you are assuming that any "unknown" is in favor of 
moderation. This is not true. I can assert that quite easily: as your 
logs will show - I did not cast a vote, yet it is clear to you and 
everyone who reads the list that I am in favor of no moderation - where 
does that figure in your equation? It is every bit as  likely your 
departees just don't have time for the list right now - I have left and 
rejoined the LUG many times over the years - simply because for certain 
periods I have lost interest or had too heavy a workload to keep up.

I trust that you will understand that when someone like myself reads 
what you have written - certain bells start ringing - bells that sound 
suspiciously like Richard Nixon invoking the "silent majority" - or 
some other similar spin.

In any case a poll that shows maybe a dozen or so people interested in 
moderation out of a 600+ membership does not sound like a ringing 
endorsement to me.

More so now than at any other time - you should try to keep an open 
mind. Please don't try and twist the facts to support your obvious 
preconceptions.

> > The last poll is very inconclusive -- "yes" politics is only ahead
> > of "no" politics by 3 votes, but 3 people unsubscribed on the 
> > second day of the big political thread who probably would have 
> > voted "no", so IMO it's still extremely even. After discussing 
> > this with the other admins, we've decided to let all of you vote 
> > on this issue to> decide.

--- In logic-ot@y..., mercutio <mercutio@c...> wrote:
> I think you are probably well intended, but I urge you to re-read 
> the paragraph quoted above and reflect. <snip>
> More so now than at any other time - you should try to keep an open 
> mind. Please don't try and twist the facts to support your obvious 
> preconceptions.


Regardless of the outcome of the last poll, the current one to decide 
the list policy is much broader in scope. What I think about the 
politics poll has little to do with the outcome of the current poll 
(especially when I only have 1 vote like the rest of you), about 
whether or not to have the official L-OT list policy ask people to 
stay focused on issues that (more or less) somehow relate to music 
here.. 

Jeremy

From: "Jeremy Martin" <sadus@...>
> Regardless of the outcome of the last poll, the current one to decide
> the list policy is much broader in scope. What I think about the
> politics poll has little to do with the outcome of the current poll
> (especially when I only have 1 vote like the rest of you), about
> whether or not to have the official L-OT list policy ask people to
> stay focused on issues that (more or less) somehow relate to music
> here..

But don't you think this list will stay related to music naturally? There
are so few threads in this user group that isn't related to music or Logic
anyway. Before the last political thread (Palestine vs Israel), how long ago
wasn't the previous one? For what I can recall it was way back in September
2001. Let's stop this arguing wether this list should be moderated or not.
The lists history shows that it doesn't need to be. I think it is a
significant point that when we received complaints about our political
thread we stopped. We really did. I think that shows that the users of this
list are indeed very capable of moderating themselves. Uninterresting
threads die out naturally anyway.

Obi

Zeek writes: 
> Well "moderators," I sure don't know how you're going to decide 
> what's "related to music" and what isn't. As far as I'm 
> concerned, everything in life is "related to music." Or, "Music 
> is life, the rest is details." However, in regards to what 
> started this "debate," Waves plugs are made in Israel, at one 
> point on another list, a boycott was suggested, not in support 
> of Palestinians, but in protest of the Israeli government's 
> recent actions against other human beings. I thought about it, 
> and decided to postpone my purchase of the Waves Bundle. 

IMO this was on topic, since you're talking about Waves. 

> We just had the American Congress give our "President" 
> unprecedented power to make a preemptive strike on another 
> sovereign nation, while our economy is in shambles, partly 
> because people are more concerned with an impending "war" 
> than creating work, or creating anything, for that matter. 
> Then, we find out that another country, North Korea, has had 
> nukes in the oven for some time and our "President" knew that 
> a full 2 weeks before Congress voted to give him his requested, 
> unprecedented "power." A secret his administration kept until 
> after the vote, events certainly worthy of at least a 3 chord 
> Folk Song, recorded in Logic Audio Platinum.

IMO this does not have anything to do with music.. I know you 
disagree, but why? I just don't see how this has anything to do with 
music. Sure, it might inspire you to write some a new song or 
something, but how does discussing this with everyone relate to 
music? 

Obliviän writes
> But don't you think this list will stay related to music 
> naturally? There are so few threads in this user group that 
> isn't related to music or Logic anyway. Before the last 
> political thread (Palestine vs Israel), how long ago wasn't 
> the previous one? For what I can recall it was way back in 
> September 2001. Let's stop this arguing wether this list 
> should be moderated or not. The lists history shows that it 
> doesn't need to be. I think it is a significant point that 
> when we received complaints about our political thread we 
> stopped. We really did. I think that shows that the users of 
> this list are indeed very capable of moderating themselves. 
> Uninterresting threads die out naturally anyway.

Well first, we wouldn't be "moderating" the L-OT list like the LUG is 
moderated. People could still writes messages and they would be sent 
out to everyone without having to be approved by a moderator. We 
could just keep an eye on the list and step in if things got out of 
hand again. Moderating the entire list would be a last resort only 
used when things get "nasty", *if* that happens again. 

Second, unfortunately the political thread was only stopped because 
the list became moderated. There were many replies sent after it 
became moderated, and those replies would have generated even further 
replies if they had been posted to everyone. I'm sure the thread 
would have died out eventually, but if it only dies out after dozens 
of people unsubscribe in disgust, I really don't think that's a good 
solution. 

As you pointed out, way off topic threads like this don't come up 
very often at all, so I doubt we would have to stop in very often at 
all, since the majority of the time list members do "behave 
themselves" just fine. 

Cheers
Jeremy

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 01:01 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:

> As you pointed out, way off topic threads like this don't come up
> very often at all, so I doubt we would have to stop in very often at

Exactly. So just let the OT list go its merry way.

Don't the "admin" people have enough to do keeping the main LUG on the 
straight and narrow?

--- In logic-ot@y..., "Jeremy Martin" <sadus@l...> wrote:
> but if it only dies out after dozens 
> of people unsubscribe in disgust, I really don't think that's a 
good 
> solution. 

ya, but you don't know that they unsubscribed in disgust. that 
was the point. Some people, like me, unsub when they have too 
much work to read this list, and then come back when there's 
something relevant. 

teddybut

--- In logic-ot@y..., Alexis Aiosa <wirehead1@a...> wrote:
> > > Well now Jeremy, now that you have crossed swords with 
> > > Dennis.  How does it feel to be a true member of the LUG. 

"Jeremy Martin" <sadus@...> writes
> > I hope this doesn't mean I have to start masturbating too

From teddybut: 
> maybe if you started, you would release your negative 
> energy and not feel the need to control us 7 rebels.

Doubt it would change much.. I do live with my girlfriend ;-b

> > but if it only dies out after dozens 
> > of people unsubscribe in disgust, I really don't think 
> > that's a good solution. 
> 
> ya, but you don't know that they unsubscribed in disgust. that 
> was the point. Some people, like me, unsub when they have too 
> much work to read this list, and then come back when there's 
> something relevant. 

As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before that. 
I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people 
unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political 
thread... though yes, of course we don't know why they left with 100% 
certainty. I could look up their email addresses if you if you felt 
like asking them?

> > As you pointed out, way off topic threads like this don't 
> > come up very often at all, so I doubt we would have to 
> > stop in very often at
> 
> Exactly. So just let the OT list go its merry way.

Yes, that's one of the options in the poll. The other is to let the 
list go on its merry way but remind it when necessary to keep focused 
on the issues the majority of the active list members want to hear 
about, preventing any personal/ethnic attacks etc. All of our other 
mailing lists have a clearly defined purpose, though this list's 
definition is very ambiguous right now. The whole point of the poll 
is to find out what the majority of active list members think the 
list policy should be. 
 
> Don't the "admin" people have enough to do keeping the main 
> LUG on the straight and narrow?

Now that we have a full 8 people helping out over there, the 
individual work load is much bearable. Not many (if any) of the other 
admins actively modreate this list anyway. 

Best regards,
Jeremy

Jeremy,

I wanted to cast my vote. Went to the url you gave. No go. Not a 
member. After a lot of red tape, registered. Went to the page of L-OT 
to find out I don't belong to that group?? Been receiving emails from 
it from the beginning, but oh well. Became a member of that group to 
find out it apparently has no current poll going. What's going on or 
what am I doing wrong?


Cheers, Bob.
-- 
Bob Lowen
Antwerp, Belgium

Email: rlow@...

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 23-10-2002:

>I'm sure the thread would have died out eventually, but if it only 
>dies out after dozens of people unsubscribe in disgust, I really 
>don't think that's a good solution.

Pure speculation...  The last big political thread was due to the 
sept 11 attack, and I don't recall dozens of people unsubscribing. 
And believe me, that one was a firestorm compared to the tiny spark 
this last one was.

>As you pointed out, way off topic threads like this don't come up
>very often at all, so I doubt we would have to stop in very often at
>all, since the majority of the time list members do "behave
>themselves" just fine.

Wrong.  "way off topic threads like this don't come up very often at 
all" and that's _precisely_ the reason there *never* is the need to 
step in.  These threads die out by themselves. In a few days, or a 
few weeks -- who cares?

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Hold on there mate , isn't this poll becoming a bit florida . You ran the
poll ,you got a CLEAR result ,and now you've decided that because the moon
wasn't in the ascendant and your cats getting twitchy the result was
inconclusive .
 Well excuse me but are you aware of the basic principle of democracy ...
the bigger number wins ...thats it ...it's over .
Anyway this thread is Clearly not about music so by your own thinking
shouldn't you just moderate it to death and  get on with things .
                                          winners are grinners and a miss is
as good as a mile
                                                  thanks for the laughs
                                                      Paul

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 23-10-2002:

>Regardless of the outcome of the last poll, the current one to decide
>the list policy is much broader in scope.

I think you missed the point of mercutio's post.  The fact that the 
last poll only attracted so very few voters and the fact that only 3 
people unsubscribed (for undetermined reasons) indicates that most 
L-OT'ers don't give a rat's *ss about political threads or not -- 
otherwise they would have voted.

What if this new poll gets 30 votes: 17 in favour of pure music-stuff 
and 13 in favour of a free-for-all forum?  Will that mean that the 
L-OT will be moderated from then on?  Because 17 out of 600 people 
want it?

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before that.
>I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people
>unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political
>thread... though yes, of course we don't know why they left with 100%
>certainty. I could look up their email addresses if you if you felt
>like asking them?

Watch how many leave when they know that censorship will be the policy.

> Hold on there mate , isn't this poll becoming a bit florida . 
> You ran the poll ,you got a CLEAR result ,and now you've 
> decided that because the moon wasn't in the ascendant and 
> your cats getting twitchy the result was inconclusive .

It was clearly stated that the first poll would *not* set the list 
policy. We admins wanted to gage how everyone felt on the issue. 
After reading everyone's opinions and seeing it was so close, we 
chose to let you all decide this by having another poll.

Please read over the poll questions. The first one (which clearly was 
never to decide the policy; please re-read the messages in this list 
around the time of its creation, I was very clear about that) was 
*only* about politics. The second poll is much broader in scope, as 
it's about any way off topic issue, not *just* politics. There is a 
very distinct difference between the two polls. 

Cheers
Jeremy

--- In logic-ot@y..., Bob Lowen <rlow@r...> wrote:
> I wanted to cast my vote. Went to the url you gave. No go. Not > a 
member. After a lot of red tape, registered. Went to the 
> page of L-OT to find out I don't belong to that group?? Been 
> receiving emails from it from the beginning, but oh well. 
> Became a member of that group to find out it apparently has no 
> current poll going. What's going on or what am I doing wrong?


You are subscribed to the list ok, but you don't have a YahooID 
associated with your email address. You will need go create a new 
Yahoo ID (just go to http://groups.yahoo.com and click "Sign In" then 
there should be a link to create a new free account). Part of the 
process will ask you what your email address is. Put in your current 
one, and it should be able to automatically detect which YahooGroups 
lists you are already subscribed to. *Then* you'll be able to vote. 

Also be sure to edit your marketing preferences so Yahoo doesn't try 
to send you advertisements through email. Once you create your 
YahooID, go into Account Info (should be a link to it at the top of 
any Yahoo Groups web page) and then click Edit My Marketing 
Preferences. Turn all that stuff to "off" or "no". Let me know if you 
have any troubles doing this.

Best wishes,
Jeremy

--- In logic-ot@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote:
> Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 23-10-2002:
> 
> >Regardless of the outcome of the last poll, the current one to 
> >decide the list policy is much broader in scope.
> 
> I think you missed the point of mercutio's post.  The fact that the 
> last poll only attracted so very few voters and the fact that only 
> 3 people unsubscribed (for undetermined reasons) indicates that 
> most L-OT'ers don't give a rat's *ss about political threads or 
> not -- otherwise they would have voted.

Or they could all be receiving "no email", and might not even be 
looking at the list *at all* anymore. Maybe we do only have 25 active 
list members? If we ever purged our subscribers and had everyone 
still active re-subscribe I'm sure our numbers in all groups would be 
substantially less.

 
> What if this new poll gets 30 votes: 17 in favour of pure music-
> stuff and 13 in favour of a free-for-all forum?  Will that mean 
> that the L-OT will be moderated from then on?  Because 17 out of 
> 600 people want it?


Good point, but by that same logic: should we leave the list 100% 
uncensored with an ambiguous list policy and let people talk about 
whatever they want, because 7 people want it? 

Jeremy

>
>Or they could all be receiving "no email", and might not even be
>looking at the list *at all* anymore. Maybe we do only have 25 active
>list members? If we ever purged our subscribers and had everyone
>still active re-subscribe I'm sure our numbers in all groups would be
>substantially less.
>
>
>>  What if this new poll gets 30 votes: 17 in favour of pure music-
>>  stuff and 13 in favour of a free-for-all forum?  Will that mean
>>  that the L-OT will be moderated from then on?  Because 17 out of
>  > 600 people want it?
>

I actually went to Yahoo, and couldn't find, remember or retrieve my
login/pass info. Being pretty busy until right now, I chose not to go through
the motions of creating *yet* another Yahoo account simply to submit a vote.
There are likely others in a similar situation (or have chosen to filter out
all email's with poll in the header ;)

FWIW I vote to allow *all* discussions, politics included.

S.
--

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 24-10-2002:

>--- In logic-ot@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote:
>>  Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 23-10-2002:
>>
>>  >Regardless of the outcome of the last poll, the current one to
>>  >decide the list policy is much broader in scope.
>>
>>  I think you missed the point of mercutio's post.  The fact that the
>>  last poll only attracted so very few voters and the fact that only
>>  3 people unsubscribed (for undetermined reasons) indicates that
>>  most L-OT'ers don't give a rat's *ss about political threads or
>>  not -- otherwise they would have voted.
>
>Or they could all be receiving "no email", and might not even be
>looking at the list *at all* anymore. Maybe we do only have 25 active
>list members? If we ever purged our subscribers and had everyone
>still active re-subscribe I'm sure our numbers in all groups would be
>substantially less.

If that's true -- i.e. 25 active members -- then the vehement 
opposition to moderation over the last days seems to indicate these 
25 (or at least a large part of them) want the list to remain 
unmoderated.
I think however that the above is some kind of sophistry: the fact 
that there are not 9000 active posters in the LUG surely doesn't mean 
that only some 100 people actually *read* the LUG?  The same applies 
here...

>  > What if this new poll gets 30 votes: 17 in favour of pure music-
>  > stuff and 13 in favour of a free-for-all forum?  Will that mean
>>  that the L-OT will be moderated from then on?  Because 17 out of
>  > 600 people want it?
>
>Good point, but by that same logic: should we leave the list 100%
>uncensored with an ambiguous list policy and let people talk about
>whatever they want, because 7 people want it?

Yes.  If 17 are pro-moderation and 13 are contra, and the other 570 
apparently don't care, then I don't see how you'll ever have a strong 
point in favour of moderation.  Apparently the status quo (= no 
moderation) is fine for the large majority out there -- otherwise 
they would have voted.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

I think this is all getting a bit silly, with polls and all.  There 
was a discussion, okay, Jeremy stepped in and started moderating, 
sort of okay, and then quite a few people protested against that, 
again okay.  There were actually only 2 or 3 people publicly 
protesting the fact that there was a political thread going on.  All 
others either didn't care, or read with interest without contributing 
(me), or got actively involved.
And now, because 2 or 3 complained, we have to make this into some 
sort official policy-thing, with polls and more such nonsense?

This list has been around for years, and usually has been a "happy 
place".  At times a fight broke out, nobody got hurt, most had a good 
time witnessing how some people got beat up :-), and everybody was 
happy.  Why in heaven's name do we even have to *think* about this?

If L-OT gets moderated I'll seriously consider unsubscribing.  This 
has always been one of the places where I could simply speak my mind 
without having to give it much thought or without being too careful 
about what I could or could not say.  Of course there are political 
lists out there, but they don't interest me.  What interests me is 
the ability to exchange ideas and have healthy fights now and then 
with kindred spirits whom I've come to know and value in a different 
context (i.e. the LUG).  Some political discussion list will never 
offer that.


cheers,
HJ, bored & annoyed by it all...

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-ot@y..., Spectro <spectro@o...> wrote:
> I actually went to Yahoo, and couldn't find, remember or retrieve my
> login/pass info. Being pretty busy until right now, I chose not to 
> go through the motions of creating *yet* another Yahoo account 
> simply to submit a vote. There are likely others in a similar 
> situation (or have chosen to filter out all email's with poll in 
> the header ;)
> FWIW I vote to allow *all* discussions, politics included.


You don't have a YahooID associated with your email address either. 
Please follow the same steps I outlined in my message to Bob. ( 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-ot/message/4772 ) 

Cheers
Jeremy

>
>  > ya, but you don't know that they unsubscribed in disgust. that
>>  was the point. Some people, like me, unsub when they have too
>>  much work to read this list, and then come back when there's
>  > something relevant.
>
>As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before that.
>I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people
>unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political
>thread...

If I had left because being censored pissed me off then would I have 
been counted as the fourth person in your calculation?

> >Good point, but by that same logic: should we leave the list 100%
> >uncensored with an ambiguous list policy and let people talk about
> >whatever they want, because 7 people want it?
> 
> Yes. If 17 are pro-moderation and 13 are contra, and the other 
> 570 apparently don't care, then I don't see how you'll ever 
> have a strong point in favour of moderation. Apparently the 
> status quo (= no moderation) is fine for the large majority out 
> there -- otherwise they would have voted.

Pure speculation... It's impossible to tell if they didn't vote 
because they like the status quo, didn't vote because they don't 
care, or didn't vote because they have abandoned their email 
address / YahooID and don't pay attention at all to the list anymore. 

> This list has been around for years, and usually has been a 
> "happy place". At times a fight broke out, nobody got hurt, 
> most had a good time witnessing how some people got beat up 
> :-), and everybody was happy. Why in heaven's name do we 
> even have to *think* about this?

I'm afraid it's because too many people like debating/arguing as a 
hobby. :-) Everyone was happy before because for quite a long time 
this list remained focued all by itself. Everyone was *not* happy 
when the huge political thread broke out, otherwise I wouldn't have 
moderated the list.

Originally when I had to "break up" the politics thread I had 
intended to unmoderate the list again as soon as it settled down. 
There was so much argument pro and against censorship etc, and 
because the 8 admins couldn't come to a conclusive decision, we 
decided to leave it up to the group to decide via the second poll. 
Yes, the most vocal side here are the people who do not wish for the 
group to have any restrictions, but it would not be fair to the 
people who voted *for* moderation to simply end the thread and let 
your particular side gets its way. The others might not be speaking 
out as frequently and loudly as the anti-censorship camp, but it 
would not be fair to ignore their opionions either. Since we can't 
please everyone in this situation it's only fair to please the 
majority of active list members, not the ones who talk louded and 
longest about this.

It's exactly because we didn't want to have to think about this 
anymore, that the last poll was created to decide this by a simple 
vote.. 

> Wrong.  "way off topic threads like this don't come up very 
> often at all" and that's _precisely_ the reason there *never* 
> is the need to step in.  

When way off topic threads start becoming racist and personal attacks 
are being made, we do have a very good reason to step in. No one 
needs that, here or anywhere else. 

> These threads die out by themselves. In a few days, or a few 
> weeks -- who cares?

All the people who signed up for this list, thinking since it is 
a "sister list" to the LUG and our other Emagic lists, topics 
discussed here would be related to music... 
 
Jeremy

> >As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before 
> >that. I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people
> >unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political
> >thread...

--- In logic-ot@y..., Dennis Gunn <dennisg@a...> wrote:
> If I had left because being censored pissed me off then would I 
> have been counted as the fourth person in your calculation?

Nope. Straight from the logs:

10/14/2002 12:58 pm st@... Unsubscribe by amusaic 
<st@...> via web 
10/15/2002 2:11 pm simon.mailliot@... Unsubscribe via email 
10/15/2002 3:50 pm anarkistos@... Unsubscribe by anarkistos 
<anarkistos@...> via web 

10/17/2002 9:34 am   Edited group policies by s6a9d6u9s 
<sadus@...> 
(this is where I moderated the group)

----- Original Message -----

From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>

> I think you missed the point of mercutio's post.  The fact that the
> last poll only attracted so very few voters and the fact that only 3
> people unsubscribed (for undetermined reasons) indicates that most
> L-OT'ers don't give a rat's *ss about political threads or not --
> otherwise they would have voted.
>

I suspect that most people, being fairly busy, quickly  scan throught posts
looking for stuff of interest and delete the rest in bulk.   A poll on list
policy is not of immediate interest and gets ignored.   These same people,
being musicians on a music list, are probably looking for musically related
posts.   They would also quite possibly appreciate a better signal to noise
ratio of musical/non-musical posts, even on a 'OT' list.   I find it hard to
imagine people wanting more WOT postings.


People should be given the choice as to whether they should have to accept
downloading WOT posts just to get to the musical ones.

There is a simple way to see how many people actually want to read non-music
posts.  Just set-up the L-WOT  group and count how many people join it.  I
will be suprised if it gets into double figures.

As long as the Logic groups are email lists rather than newgroups, members
are going to want rules to prevent people taking liberties with their
bandwidth..  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that
LUG/L-OT/Sounddiver/EXS are music lists and all topics should be musical.

How much effort is it for those few people who so badly want to talk WOT to
join the L-WOT group?   Not much at all.

Hector.

from Jeremy.
> >As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before that.
> >I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people
> >unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political
> >thread... though yes, of course we don't know why they left with 100%
> >certainty. I could look up their email addresses if you if you felt
> >like asking them?
>

Dennis Gunn replied:
> Watch how many leave when they know that censorship will be the policy.

God! you make such a drama, Dennis.   Jeremy has already said that in the
proposed new system,  on a day to day basis the L-OT list will not be
moderated.   Only occasional threads being moved to a L-WOT  list.   I get
the distinct impression that you are twisting and exaggerating to support
your argument.   Censorship is a very strong word and completely unjustified
in this case, as the posts would still be available, just elsewhere.

Hector.

>It was clearly stated that the first poll would *not* set the list
>policy.

So you do at least grasp the concept of masturbation (if not your own 
tool) and advocate the practice.

----- Original Message -----

From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>

> If L-OT gets moderated I'll seriously consider unsubscribing.  This
> has always been one of the places where I could simply speak my mind
> without having to give it much thought or without being too careful
> about what I could or could not say.  Of course there are political
> lists out there, but they don't interest me.

Again, what drama!  Why can you not accept that the worst that can happen to
a thread is it gets moved to a L-WOT list?  Big deal.  Would you really feel
that you had to unsubscribe from L-OT because of this?


 >What interests me is
> the ability to exchange ideas and have healthy fights now and then
> with kindred spirits whom I've come to know and value in a different
> context (i.e. the LUG).

And you would still be able to, just occasionally on the L-WOT list.

The only thing you would have to think about when writing on the L-OT is
whether the topic is music related or not.  How hard is that?

Hector.

Dennis Gunn wrote:
>
> If I had left because being censored pissed me off then would I have
> been counted as the fourth person in your calculation?

Nobody is suggesting complete censorship, just moving some posts to an L-WOT
list.

Hector.

>from Jeremy.
>>  >As I mentioned before, no one had unsubscribed for weeks before that.
>>  >I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that 3 people
>>  >unsubscribed on the second or third day of the huge political
>>  >thread... though yes, of course we don't know why they left with 100%
>>  >certainty. I could look up their email addresses if you if you felt
>>  >like asking them?
>>
>
>Dennis Gunn replied:
>>  Watch how many leave when they know that censorship will be the policy.
>
>God! you make such a drama, Dennis.

I am constantly amazed at how people make so much of undramatic 
statements.  I made a straight one line observation that did not 
contain a single adjective and that is called dramatic.


>Jeremy has already said that in the
>proposed new system,  on a day to day basis the L-OT list will not be
>moderated.   Only occasional threads being moved to a L-WOT  list.   I get
>the distinct impression that you are twisting and exaggerating to support
>your argument.   Censorship is a very strong word and completely unjustified
>in this case, as the posts would still be available, just elsewhere.
>
>Hector.

  Jeremy has been censoring people's posts and I am not just talking 
about mine.  And he has said he is proud to be a censor.  More than 
one person on this list has told me personally that they probably 
won't be hanging around if that is the policy and I am not too sure I 
will either.  What exactly am I twisting or exaggerating.  As far as 
I know I am simply stating the facts in front of me.

It strikes me that we are entering the golden age of denial.

> From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
> > I think you missed the point of mercutio's post.  The fact that the
> > last poll only attracted so very few voters and the fact that only 3
> > people unsubscribed (for undetermined reasons) indicates that most
> > L-OT'ers don't give a rat's *ss about political threads or not --
> > otherwise they would have voted.
> >

From: "Hector" <hector@...>
> I suspect that most people, being fairly busy, quickly  scan throught
posts
> looking for stuff of interest and delete the rest in bulk.   A poll on
list
> policy is not of immediate interest and gets ignored.   These same people,
> being musicians on a music list, are probably looking for musically
related
> posts.   They would also quite possibly appreciate a better signal to
noise
> ratio of musical/non-musical posts, even on a 'OT' list.   I find it hard
to
> imagine people wanting more WOT postings.

I can only speak for myself, but I have signed up and signed off both the
LUG and L-OT several times over the years. It is for no special reason other
than that sometimes I get bored of all the emails or it is of no use for me.
In fact (I know this is a very selfish approach, but please forgive me) I
filter all messages from both LUG or L-OT to go straight into the trashcan
unless I have something I need help with. I've been using Logic since 2.5
and there is really not much I need help with though... That said LUG has
been of great value of resource for me over the years. My point is, if I had
signed off LUG or L-OT it wouldn't have had anything to with the threads
other than that I was bored with all the emails, topics being Logic or
not...

Hi all,

What a waste of time having to argue concerning the OT list. My 
personal views on this are the following:

1. I often rather enjoy reading people's opinions about current 
non-music topics, there are times I trash almost all the rest, simply 
because no music related problems which interest me at that time are 
being dealt with.

2. The number of way-OT emails on the OT list is very low compared to 
music-related OT emails. In times of heavy way-OT load on the list, 
if you want to trash these emails, then the total amount of time you 
have to spend to do this probably is less then 15 seconds a day.

3. There are too many, in my opinion, respected and long standing 
members of this list who regularly have interesting non-music related 
discussions, for me to want to stop them from doing that, and neither 
should the moderators.

4. The job of being a moderator is tough. These members, without a 
doubt, are doing a great job and for this they deserve our thanks and 
respect. However, having said this, it is also such that they do not 
represent us, and as such they should not be making or changing list 
policy unless there is a clear list-consensus. Unless a majority of 
list members cast their vote, one can question whether the outcome 
has any meaning at all.

In view of all this, and unless there is a majority vote against, I 
would like the OT-list to remain completely free.

Not wanting to spend too much time on this, I typed the above 
practically in one go. Sorry if there is any inconsistency, it is 
just my gut feeling.

Cheers,  Bob
-- 
Bob Lowen
Antwerp, Belgium

Email: rlow@...

On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:42 AM, Hector wrote:

> Nobody is suggesting complete censorship, just moving some posts to an 
> L-WOT
> list.
>
Because it will inevitably arise that some thread will be moved over 
there - sparking again the debate.

Because this list serves as an "safety valve" outlet for the main LUG - 
and functions quite well for that.

Because it would be just as easy or perhaps easier  to create a "L-OT 
Moderated" list for those who wish to have their email vetted before it 
sullies their hard drive (all 13 of them) and leave this list alone.

Because the principle at stake here is this: do individuals accept the 
responsibility for what they read or don't read? or do they ask someone 
else to make the decision for them?

From: "Dennis Gunn" <dennisg@...>
>   Jeremy has been censoring people's posts and I am not just talking
> about mine.  And he has said he is proud to be a censor.  More than
> one person on this list has told me personally that they probably
> won't be hanging around if that is the policy and I am not too sure I
> will either.  What exactly am I twisting or exaggerating.  As far as
> I know I am simply stating the facts in front of me.

Further more, according to his Yahoo profile, Jeremy claims to be a prophet!
Now, that disqualifies any hint of an unbiased moderation in my ears! (I
hope he's not serious in his statement...?!?) I am sure he's joking, right
Jeremy?

> From: "Dennis Gunn" <dennisg@...>
> >   Jeremy has been censoring people's posts and I am not just talking
> > about mine.  And he has said he is proud to be a censor.  More than
> > one person on this list has told me personally that they probably
> > won't be hanging around if that is the policy and I am not too sure I
> > will either.  What exactly am I twisting or exaggerating.  As far as
> > I know I am simply stating the facts in front of me.

From: "Oblivi\ufffdn | Bacteria AS" <oblivian@...>
> Further more, according to his Yahoo profile, Jeremy claims to be a
prophet!
> Now, that disqualifies any hint of an unbiased moderation in my ears! (I
> hope he's not serious in his statement...?!?) I am sure he's joking, right
> Jeremy?

I'd just like to point out that I meant this humorously... I don't think he
see himself as a prophet, litterarely. :)

Jeremy the non masturbator wrote:

> too many people like debating/arguing as a
> hobby. :-) Everyone was happy before because for quite a long time
> this list remained focued all by itself.

right.... sure Jeremy.

and now that you've stepped in you think it's more focused? on what? We are
now focused on YOU man.... this list sucks now because of your moderation.
Henrik is right in every way... please don't take away our place to chat and
talk and make us sign up for yet another list...

annoyed
teddybut

Jeremy the non masturbator wrote:
>> It was clearly stated that the first poll would *not* set the list
>> policy.

Dennis Gunn wrote:
> So you do at least grasp the concept of masturbation (if not your own
> tool) and advocate the practice.

oh ya, that's what I like... the real OT. that comment is so right on it's
scary.

best,
teddybut

From: "teddybut" <teddybut@...>
> and now that you've stepped in you think it's more focused? on what? We
are
> now focused on YOU man.... this list sucks now because of your moderation.
> Henrik is right in every way... please don't take away our place to chat
and
> talk and make us sign up for yet another list...

Teddy, don't get so personal, Jeremy was only doing what he thought was
right, a mistake in my view, but still I don't think we should turn against
him. And there are seven other moderators here, not just Jeremy. Forget
about the moderation in the first place, there were so many unclear factors
to consider that no matter how you view it, no one was right or wrong.

The only mistake I see now, is that this list is still being moderated.
That's completely un-necessary. Let's settle with this conclusion: Jeremy
was right to stop a discussion that got out of hand and we are right to
demand this list to be unmoderated further, now that things have settled.


Obi

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 24-10-2002:

>  > >Good point, but by that same logic: should we leave the list 100%
>>  >uncensored with an ambiguous list policy and let people talk about
>>  >whatever they want, because 7 people want it?
>>
>>  Yes. If 17 are pro-moderation and 13 are contra, and the other
>>  570 apparently don't care, then I don't see how you'll ever
>>  have a strong point in favour of moderation. Apparently the
>>  status quo (= no moderation) is fine for the large majority out
>>  there -- otherwise they would have voted.
>
>Pure speculation... It's impossible to tell if they didn't vote
>because they like the status quo, didn't vote because they don't
>care, or didn't vote because they have abandoned their email
>address / YahooID and don't pay attention at all to the list anymore.

A bit of elementary logic applied to your above quote:
If they like the status quo: keep the LOT unmoderated.
If they don't care: keep the LOT unmoderated.
If they don't even read the LOT and thus don't count: keep the LOT unmoderated.

How simple can it get?

Oh, sorry, that was intellectual arrogance, I suppose :-)

>  > Wrong.  "way off topic threads like this don't come up very
>>  often at all" and that's _precisely_ the reason there *never*
>>  is the need to step in. 
>
>When way off topic threads start becoming racist and personal attacks
>are being made, we do have a very good reason to step in. No one
>needs that, here or anywhere else.

Personal attacks: everyone here is mature enough to defend him/herself.
Racism: I didn't see any around last time I looked.  Or is saying 
that the Isreali government is a bunch of bastards because they keep 
killing Palestinian children racist nowadays?  The same could be said 
about the Palestines btw...  If that is racist, then I have some nice 
racist remarks in store for you regarding one bastard president of 
one very well know superpower...

>  > These threads die out by themselves. In a few days, or a few
>>  weeks -- who cares?
>
>All the people who signed up for this list, thinking since it is
>a "sister list" to the LUG and our other Emagic lists, topics
>discussed here would be related to music...

"*All* the people"?  Then quite a few posters here apparently don't 
qualify as "people".  Or did you mean "all the people who thought 
this would be a music related list"?  In that case: how many people 
are we talking about?  You don't know, and I don't either.

AFAI can see, it's not even the majority who cares...

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

I'm back for more punishment. ;)

> 
>   Jeremy has been censoring people's posts and I am not just talking 
> about mine.  And he has said he is proud to be a censor. 

I  am also proud Jeremy is the censor.  If he was not the censor, I probably 
wouldn't be back here.  I have total faith in Jeremy's censorship.

Interesting fact: I was one of the early extra moderators signed up for the LUG, 
and I was also offered the "moderatorship" of the other Logic-oriented lists, 
including this one.  I thought this list was far too out of control to be the "logic 
lounge" I would have hoped, and I saw that it would be more work than I had 
time to do.  Now that Jeremy has not only taken the job, but proven he's up to 
the task, I think it's worth coming back to.  Admittedly, at the moment it's mostly 
posts about posting, but I think when that is over, this will be a far more 
valuable, community-oriented place than it ever was before.

> More than 
> one person on this list has told me personally that they probably 
> won't be hanging around if that is the policy and I am not too sure I 
> will either.

Ok, here's my take on things, as simply as I can put it:
1) I'd like a "logic lounge" where I can hang out with other Logic users, and 
chat.
2) I don't want to read self-oppointed political experts vomit forth their 
"wisdom" in a Logic Lounge.
3) I don't want to read self-appointed computer experts tell me that Apple 
sucks, my Mac sucks, and I suck for using one.
4) I want to be comfortable that 2 and 3 won't be allowed to slip through.
5) I feel that anyone finds it so distasteful that they need to contain their 
hateful, confrontational posts that they threaten to leave...well, I'm not sure 
their antisocial poison is really necessary.

My personal take on things is that people who post hateful diatribes (on 
anything--people, regions, computer systems, etc) should be banned.  And 
trust me, if I were a moderator of this group (and you never know...I might just 
be one day :) ), I'd be a censoring, banning motherfucker.  And after all the 
defections of those who resent being taken to task for their hatred, those of us 
left would be a rather pleasant group, able to discuss our likes and dislikes 
and uses of Logic regardless of our personal or political backgrounds.

> It strikes me that we are entering the golden age of denial.

I think it is denial to think that people are capable of conducting themselves 
properly in complete anarchy.  There must be order of some sort.  These lists 
are not a democracy.  They are an "oligarchy" (rule by the few).  Anyone who 
doesn't like it, start your own!  My God, yahoo groups is an easy place to start 
a list; someone doesn't like the way this list is run, take your own initiative, 
don't badger Jeremy for his!

But just a story some of you may know: one of the engineers on the motu-mac 
list got so upset with the Moderator of said list for his censorship, he started 
his own list, motu-masters.  That list ended up being even MORE tightly 
controlled!

Peace, Love, and Marshmellows,
The Lord Of Wolves

http://www.darkling.com

Thoughts from the mind of Hector, 24-10-2002:

>From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
>
>  >What interests me is
>  > the ability to exchange ideas and have healthy fights now and then
>>  with kindred spirits whom I've come to know and value in a different
>>  context (i.e. the LUG).
>
>And you would still be able to, just occasionally on the L-WOT list.
>
>The only thing you would have to think about when writing on the L-OT is
>whether the topic is music related or not.  How hard is that?

Not very.  It is however extremely redundant in my view.  The L-OT is 
very low traffic, WOT-arguments come up only once or twice a year, 
and moderating such a list, or creating yet another list for these 
occasions seems a bit bizarre to me.

 From another post of yours:
>There is a simple way to see how many people actually want to read non-music
>posts.  Just set-up the L-WOT  group and count how many people join it.  I
>will be suprised if it gets into double figures.

Alternate suggestion: create a L-NTMOT list (Logic, not too much off 
topic) for those who object to the occasional non-music related 
argument.  Then count how many people join in.  I will be suprised if 
it gets into double figures.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> >> >Good point, but by that same logic: should we leave the list 
> >> >100% uncensored with an ambiguous list policy and let people 
> >> >talk about whatever they want, because 7 people want it?
> >>
> >> Yes. If 17 are pro-moderation and 13 are contra, and the other
> >> 570 apparently don't care, then I don't see how you'll ever
> >> have a strong point in favour of moderation. Apparently the
> >> status quo (= no moderation) is fine for the large majority out
> >> there -- otherwise they would have voted.
> >
> >Pure speculation... It's impossible to tell if they didn't vote
> >because they like the status quo, didn't vote because they don't
> >care, or didn't vote because they have abandoned their email
> >address / YahooID and don't pay attention at all to the list 
> >anymore.
> 
> A bit of elementary logic applied to your above quote:
> If they like the status quo: keep the LOT unmoderated.
> If they don't care: keep the LOT unmoderated.
> If they don't even read the LOT and thus don't count: keep the LOT 
> unmoderated.

I agree with the first one, but if they don't care, or don't even 
read the list and thus don't count, why not let the majority of 
active list members who do care decide? 

This list will *never* be unmoderated. Most of you probably haven't 
noticed, but new memberships to this list require the approval of a 
moderator. I noticed the vast majority of spammers have been using 
very similar random email addresses, e.g. fdxljsadfkjasd@... 
(they all contain the same exactly number of random characters, about 
13 of them). I reject spammers trying to sign up here at least three 
times a week, sometimes much more often. Do you really want me to 
stop moderating in that sense and let the spammers have their way 
with the list? 

Or, if you mean by "unmoderated", that each message does not have to 
be approved by an admin before being sent out to the list: as I 
mentioned before, even if the majority of voters do want to keep 
politics etc off of this list, we would still leave new messages 
unmoderated and only step in if things got out of hand again. We 
never intended to always moderate all new posts (like we do on the 
LUG) if the majority of people voted for the first choice in the 
poll. 

> > > These threads die out by themselves. In a few days, or a few
> > > weeks -- who cares?
> >
> >All the people who signed up for this list, thinking since it is
> >a "sister list" to the LUG and our other Emagic lists, topics
> >discussed here would be related to music...
> 
> "*All* the people"? Then quite a few posters here apparently 
> don't qualify as "people". 

That is becoming more and more evident, about a few guys here at 
least ;-) (j/k, and I'm not talking about you of course, Hendrik)

> Or did you mean "all the people who thought 
> this would be a music related list"? In that case: how many people 
> are we talking about? You don't know, and I don't either.
> AFAI can see, it's not even the majority who cares...

Here's a little more clarificatoin: 

All the people who: (signed up for this list thinking, since it was 
a "sister" list to the other Emagic lists, topics discussed here 
would be related to music.) 

But anyway, you did not ask "how many care" -- but "who cares." I was 
just answering your question. 

Best wishes,
Jeremy 
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus

On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 04:45 PM, Orren Merton wrote:

> My personal take on things is that people who post hateful diatribes 
> (on
> anything--people, regions, computer systems, etc) should be banned.  
> And
> trust me, if I were a moderator of this group (and you never know...I 
> might just
> be one day :) ), I'd be a censoring, banning motherfucker.

I am not interested in such diatribes either.

But I find it strange, even disturbing that you would feel competent to 
prevent me from making my own decision regarding any post.

Posts I do not wish to read I trash. Those I wish to read I read.

I have no assurance whatsoever that you would make the same decisions 
for me as I would make for myself.

Therefore I decline the service you offer, however well intended.

On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 05:19 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:

> Do you really want me to
> stop moderating in that sense and let the spammers have their way
> with the list?
>
Speaking for myself - I have already stated in a previous post that the 
"moderators" do a fine job on spam patrol.

But of course this discussion is not about spam. It is about legitimate 
list members having their posts disappear at the whim of the 
"moderator". This is not acceptable.

> On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 05:19 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
> > Do you really want me to
> > stop moderating in that sense and let the spammers have their way
> > with the list?

--- In logic-ot@y..., mercutio <mercutio@c...> wrote:
> Speaking for myself - I have already stated in a previous post that 
> the "moderators" do a fine job on spam patrol.
> But of course this discussion is not about spam. It is about 
> legitimate list members having their posts disappear at the whim of 
> the "moderator". This is not acceptable.


Big difference between "at the whim of a moderator", and "because 
they do not follow the policy the majority of active users vote for"

--- In logic-ot@y..., mercutio <mercutio@c...> wrote:

> I have no assurance whatsoever that you would make the same decisions 
> for me as I would make for myself.

Ideally, there would be a Logic-OT Rules document available and 
automatically posted at some interval which outlines explicitly what the 
guidelines and parameters for acceptable posts are.  This document would 
take much (not all, of course) of the guesswork out of eliminating posts or 
posters.  It would also allow any moderator who does reject posts or ban 
individuals to cite a specific rule as the reason why, so even if the poster 
objected, there would be an obvious reason for it rather than the whim of the 
specific moderator.

Orren

On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Orren Merton wrote:

> Ideally

I think we should agree to disagree

:-)

Orren writes
>
>2) I don't want to read self-oppointed political experts vomit forth their
>"wisdom" in a Logic Lounge.
>3) I don't want to read self-appointed computer experts tell me that Apple
>sucks, my Mac sucks, and I suck for using one.

Orren you are a big computer literate boy.  You know how to use the 
delete button.  You know how to use filters.  Right?


>4) I want to be comfortable that 2 and 3 won't be allowed to slip through.
>5) I feel that anyone finds it so distasteful that they need to contain their
>hateful, confrontational posts that they threaten to leave...well, 
>I'm not sure
>their antisocial poison is really necessary.

Am I hateful antisocial poison.  I know there are people who see me 
that way but I don't.

>My personal take on things is that people who post hateful diatribes (on
>anything--people, regions, computer systems, etc) should be banned.  And
>trust me, if I were a moderator of this group (and you never 
>know...I might just
>be one day :) ), I'd be a censoring, banning motherfucker.  And after all the
>defections of those who resent being taken to task for their hatred, 
>those of us
>left would be a rather pleasant group, able to discuss our likes and dislikes
>and uses of Logic regardless of our personal or political backgrounds.

All one of you.

>  > It strikes me that we are entering the golden age of denial.
>
>I think it is denial to think that people are capable of conducting themselves
>properly in complete anarchy.  There must be order of some sort.  These lists
>are not a democracy.  They are an "oligarchy" (rule by the few).  Anyone who
>doesn't like it, start your own!  My God, yahoo groups is an easy 
>place to start
>a list; someone doesn't like the way this list is run, take your own 
>initiative,
>don't badger Jeremy for his!

If I recall the DAW went for years with *no* moderation.  Anyway in 
the real world complete anarchy is dangerous.  In the small virtual 
confines of a single mailing list it is no danger to anyone.

Shouldn't it be possible for all the people outraged concerning some of our
opinions to still be able to censor their received mails by carefully
deciding who they didn't like and then in their mail rules send us straight
to the recycle bin as in using "FROM" .
  They could make us into virtual non people without needing to try to bend
us to their will ,wouldn't that be nice for EVERYONE or isn't that the aim
of this thread .

  P.S make the 'against' case up by one, I was unwilling to negotiate the
yahoo maze yet again ,who worked out their protocols I wonder ,I always
thought e groups was so much more user friendly .
                                              Paul
                                                sorry for the opinionated
diatribe but I just love my own words on the screen in front of me ,it's so
empowering .
     do you think people who do hate see hate everywhere . I dissagree with
a lot of people here but [possibly thanks to our moderators] I dont think
Ive seen any hate mail on the list at all , maybe hate is another misused
word/phrase like R'n B and Rock and Roll

Teddybut wrote:
>
> Jeremy the non masturbator wrote:
>
>> too many people like debating/arguing as a
>> hobby. :-) Everyone was happy before because for quite a long time
>> this list remained focued all by itself.
>
> right.... sure Jeremy.
>
> and now that you've stepped in you think it's more focused? on what? 
> We are
> now focused on YOU man.... this list sucks now because of your 
> moderation.
> Henrik is right in every way... please don't take away our place to 
> chat and
> talk and make us sign up for yet another list...
>
> annoyed
> teddybut

Jeremy and teddybut,

LOL...sorry I couldn't help but laugh as soon as I read this.  
Jeremy...LOL...teddybut has got point man.  Sorry.  But truth be known, 
we are debating censorship, which basically says, it's 
censorship....LOL.

Jeremy, you've full right to censor the LUG, you don't really have 
censor L-OT, really.  Barely are the polls are in the favor of the MOD 
team.  Let it go.  Control just ain't that important.  Beside that, 
it'll ruin the fun to not be able to talk about Britney Spears Ass.

This symbol "-" is known as a dash.  The dash symbolizes from something 
"to" something else.  Logic - OT.  Logic to off topic.

masturbated, showered and feel very reeeeelllllaaaaxxxxed.
Alexis

Hello all OT people,

After this email I am officially quitting this conversation. I value 
being able to use the LUG and all it's accosiated lists and don't 
want to be banned.

I've suggested to Jeremy the follwing:

setup an OT-DAW list

Divert non music, or music study/theory related posts here, 
where the terminology makes sense, L-OT (completely) 

the messages that have to do with other software, hardware not 
made by emagic, etc... music DAW related, can go to the new 
OT-DAW list. 

I think that's a good comprimise. Maybe you could add that 
option to the poll, Jeremy, to be fair and not one sided. I just wish 
you, Jeremy, had thought of it sooner and not made so much out 
of the moderation thing. It really did seem one sided on your part. 
The admins should be like invisible angels who do what's best 
for us without riling us, and therefore alienating themselves. 
Taking sides from admins is asking for trouble IMHO. 

The only reason some of us got pissed off at Jeremy, IMHO, is 
because our free speech was being threatened, deleted and 
censored. That is just about the most offensive thing you can do 
to someone who is in the middle of expressing themselves 
politically. Some people who didn't want to read the political 
messages complained. Fair enough. That deserves to be 
addressed. If the complainers had been accommodated 
immediately and quietly in the background, with gentle authority, 
we would have never missed a beat in our political discussion 
and, I believe it would have had less impact on our discourse 
here.

I've said enough,
teddybut

Can we drop this boring moderation thread and get back to the personal 
insults and hot political talk? Jeremy surely must have more important things 
to do than to spend so much energy policing the free speech of a bunch of 
adults. Here is a simple rule for moderation ... if the comments appear to be 
a criminal threat, that person is moderated. Otherwise, lets talk. 

And there are more things to talk about politically than ever. Impending war 
in Iraq. The ongoing tragedy in Palestine. Afganistan. The world economy. 
Terrorism. Bushism. 

And oh yeah.. music!

>I agree with the first one, but if they don't care, or don't even 
>read the list and thus don't count, why not let the majority of 
>active list members who do care decide? 

Exactly.

Here in the UK. If you don't vote then bad luck.
If labour are voted out because all the labour voters didn't vote for
whatever reason, the govt cant say 'well all the people that didn't vote
were labour voters therefore we won' now do they.

Anyway, all this is starting to get very, very boring.

I am unsubbing for a while.

The last music related post was a bloody long time ago. 
I'd give you an actual date if I could but too many political posts, too
many list admin posts make it impossible to tell.
I know I could set up filters but as people keep changing the heading,
and I already have about 40 rules running it really isnt worth it.

FWIW I voted to moderate the list not because I want to infringe on
anyones right to freedom of speech, but because I'd rather have people
talk politics on a political list.
I don't expect people to start talking logic mixing techniques on a
political list. But that is just me.

I know people have their objections to this- but if you were in a
restaurant discussing logic with a large group of people and two or
three started talking over everyone else about politics would it not
annoy you a bit?
It did me.
So I'm going to go to another restaurant. 
Yay for the stupid analogy.

Bye for a while.

James Richmond

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 24-10-2002:

>  > A bit of elementary logic applied to your above quote:
>>  If they like the status quo: keep the LOT unmoderated.
>>  If they don't care: keep the LOT unmoderated.
>>  If they don't even read the LOT and thus don't count: keep the LOT
>>  unmoderated.
>
>I agree with the first one, but if they don't care, or don't even
>read the list and thus don't count, why not let the majority of
>active list members who do care decide?

Sigh... there's no arguing with you...  Sure, fine, have your way.

>This list will *never* be unmoderated. Most of you probably haven't
>noticed, but new memberships to this list require the approval of a
>moderator.
[...]
>Or, if you mean by "unmoderated", that each message does not have to
>be approved by an admin before being sent out to the list:

Jeremy, I'm very well aware of how this list is run.  And if by now 
you still don't understand what I mean when I say "unmoderated", then 
I simply give up.

>only step in if things got out of hand again.

For the record: this is what I and others object to.  Esp. your 
apparent criteria for what constitutes "out of hand" situations.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Orren wrote:
> Why Jeremy Can Censor
>
> I'm back for more punishment. ;)

I am gearing up for it Orren.  I stand by HK's words, he seems to be 
exercising his right to be voiced and sounds as logical and rational as 
I would like to be.  Henrik so far has made the strongest CASE.  
Really...and I hope that Jeremy can see that and at least take that 
into consideration.  Cause neither has anybody effectively made a 
strong case...not you, not Jeremy, not Dennis...Just Henrik.

Yet at this point...after reading what you just posted I am seriously 
concerned with idea of putting you in a position as a moderator.  
Jeremy is working with much more a level head than you are...at this 
moment.  Despite his frustration of being ridden a little to hard by 
others.  As far as I am concerned, you shouldn't be moderating at all.  
You need to step away from the computer and perhaps go drinking with 
some friends...because your diatribe has left me with a strong distaste 
than anything else that was said here.  Really, it is quite disturbing 
what you wrote...more disturbing than anything...and I've read Poe.  I 
think you need to step down from being mod right now...literally step 
down from the podium and let others do the job.  Cause you my friend 
are tittering on the brink of losing it.  It shows...you might as well 
being writing your memoirs in a little black book while drinking Lodnum 
and eating datura leaves.  Topped with licking lead based paint.

<Snipped a lot of stuff and some borderline dictator-like crap>
> I think it is denial to think that people are capable of conducting 
> themselves
> properly in complete anarchy.

Well there was a time where it was possible.  But effectively, it is 
now too late.  But certainly any concept can be proven, so long as one 
element is not involved.  Pessimism.  Many tribes have passed on 
traditions of total peace with no Hierarchy, no jealousy, etc.  No 
traits of anything that binds the likes of us today.  But effectively 
piece by piece, we are destroying that to.  It is because of people 
like us, naively not knowing that we are destroying that...but we are.

Yet even the Native American Indians were not violent with their tribal 
disagreements. If they disagreed, and rational decision could not be 
made.  They literally had a paint war, sticks with balls of cloth, 
colored paints of red and blue to mark the teams.  But no harm was ever 
done.

So far, I have heard you say this before about Anarchy.  So, you are 
becoming a tad redundant.  I suggest finding other ideas to expand on.  
Cause the only way things happen, is by making it happen, despite how 
pessimistic others are.  That Goth Pessimism stinks too, after a while 
it becomes tired and boorish.  Rather contrived and trivial now.  I 
rather expect it of them.  You're a GenX'er...get over it already.

>   They are an "oligarchy" (rule by the few).

Ooooh, I like it when you get all macho, it makes me tingly all over.  
Do you wanna meet in west hollywood at the French market...say noonish, 
tomorrow.  Later we can go to Stigmata and enjoy the trivial sites.

Yes, and that is fine...in some cases.  Especially when the "oligarchy" 
is ruled with a compromise of unbiased nature.  That is truly the 
point...and a democracy is the really the only way that is achieved.  
Which we were actually setting coarse toward that...till you posted 
some of your rather inane, yet distasteful diatribe.  Really what you 
have done here is successfully point fingers at the commoners of the OT 
list.  You separated and divided everyone into exactly what we were 
talking about...the "conflict".  You, effectively have done nothing to 
make a rational resolution.  You just created more opposition than 
resolution.  Really, I can't say how disappointed I am in you.  You 
effectively turned the view of the Mod Squad into sounding like a 
Regime.  Sorry, in my view...right now, in this moment...you suck, 
Orren.  Step down, and let Jeremy do his job...and perhaps you need to 
take a break.  If you wanna be separatist, then do it on your own time.

> Peace, Love, and Marshmellows,
> The Lord Of Wolves

Lord...LORD...whew.  What happened, did you get your ass kicked a lot 
in high school?

Whew...borderline_________________________dude.

Peace,
Alexis

----- Original Message -----

From: Alexis Aiosa <wirehead1@...>

> >Orren wrote:
> > I'm back for more punishment. ;)

> I am gearing up for it Orren.  I stand by...

<vast ammount of wierd ramblings snipped>

> ...take a break.  If you wanna be separatist, then do it on your own time.


Is this some sort of confusion tactic Alexis?   I have never seen so many
words that make so little sense.

Orren's post on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

Hector.

mercutio wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 04:45 PM, Orren Merton wrote:
>
>> My personal take on things is that people who post hateful diatribes
>> (on
>> anything--people, regions, computer systems, etc) should be banned.
>> And
>> trust me, if I were a moderator of this group (and you never know...I
>> might just
>> be one day :) ), I'd be a censoring, banning motherfucker.
>
> I am not interested in such diatribes either.
>
> But I find it strange, even disturbing that you would feel competent to
> prevent me from making my own decision regarding any post.

I totally agree to this.

Delete, Delete, delete...oh something I wish to talk about... Delete, 
Delete, delete....Oh look, yet something else.

> Posts I do not wish to read I trash. Those I wish to read I read.

Point.

> I have no assurance whatsoever that you would make the same decisions
> for me as I would make for myself.

Point.

> Therefore I decline the service you offer, however well intended.

In accordance to his DIATRIBE, this NOT offered to you...You will 
censored whether you like it or NOT.  Of course, in accordance to 
Orren's diatribe.

My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?  In 
view of what I just read, personally I think the mod squad has the 
responsibility to let him go.  Since he has taken this too far...at 
least with Jeremy, there is a compromise for a Rational Resolution.  
But Orren is questionable, because he creating a greater divide, rather 
than bringing people together and making final decision.  At least 
Jeremy is listening to Henrik, and taking note.

Like what I said earlier, on monday:

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 12:35  PM, Alexis Aiosa wrote:
> Yet, I do feel in favor of NO Censorship of the OT list.  However I 
> did think the last issue just got a tad out hand.  I just feel at this 
> point the "conflict" issue is misinterpreted by all, especially if 
> positioned with bias.  I don't agree with any biased statements with 
> regards to the issue of the "conflict", because I don't agree with 
> either party...I think they are both stupid and immature 
> wankers...LOL.  My feeling are this:
>
> a.  My hateful side of me says:  Nuke the fuck out of all them, and 
> the utter the words, "fight over that mother fucker...ain't that 
> pretty, you're all fucking dead."
>
> b.  But my loving side says:  Stop fighting, now.  Make a peaceful 
> compromise and rational resolution that make everyone content to move 
> on with their lives.
>
> Now...which side would you prefer I acted on?
>
> If one said "b" is the answer...then one assumes to have answered 
> correctly...but then it goes with out saying...That...
>
> The same should be expected of all of us.

Right now...Orren is acting out of "a" rather than "b".  Unfavorable in 
my view.

Peace,
Alexis

Hi!

Long ago (at least it seems) I asked the members of this list to stop the
ongoing discussion and to keep to L- related topics...

...I shouldn�t have done that.

Since then a flood of discussions and metadiscussions wash through my modem
- none of them related to music or computers at all.

I want to excuse for having unintentionally triggered such an amount of
waste (not meaning someone special, as I haven�t read most of the mails
anyhow).

I guess I�ll wait a little more time to see if any kind of -WOT or -PUB or
whatever list will be started to keep away all that white noise from this
innocent little logic-related mailing list. If not, I�ll have to quit.
Oh - I am very pleased about the present state of LUG - since it�s
following strict rules, it�s useful again. Thanks to the guys who do all
the work.

Tobias

> My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?  

My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.

Tony Perretta

At 08:09 PM 10/25/2002, you wrote:
> > My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?
>
>My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.

Naaa, you guys are both excellent moderators. I think it's a shame everyone 
enjoys arguing so much over here that it has come to this. I wonder if 
there's a name for a psychological disease in which people are addicted to 
arguing?

In the end, these are our own private lists with perfectly competent admin 
staff. People might not agree with our decisions, but anyone who doesn't 
have the heart (and/or the balls) to volunteer to be an admin has never 
seen things from our unique side of the fence and is absolutely no position 
to judge whether or not any of us are suited to be a moderator, period.


Best wishes,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In logic-ot@y..., Jeremy Martin <martje@n...> wrote:
> At 08:09 PM 10/25/2002, you wrote:
>I think it's a shame everyone 
> enjoys arguing so much over here that it has come to this. I 
>wonder if  there's a name for a psychological disease in which 
>people are addicted to arguing?

Are you making a value judgment on whether it's good to argue 
or not? I'd like to argue about that, if you don't mind. Your 
argument that arguing is bad, mmmm-k, is a bit weak since it's 
an argument.

thank you for your time,
teddybut

moderator = moderate = in moderation = in the middle = not 
opinionated or biased = non extreme point of view.... etc.

teddybut

At 09:17 AM 10/26/2002, you wrote:
>--- In logic-ot@y..., Jeremy Martin <martje@n...> wrote:
> > At 08:09 PM 10/25/2002, you wrote:
> >I think it's a shame everyone
> > enjoys arguing so much over here that it has come to this. I
> >wonder if  there's a name for a psychological disease in which
> >people are addicted to arguing?
>
>Are you making a value judgment on whether it's good to argue
>or not? I'd like to argue about that, if you don't mind. Your
>argument that arguing is bad, mmmm-k, is a bit weak since it's
>an argument.

I'm simply making the point that all of our lists are private lists, 
"owned" by the admins. We are free to have whoever we want as moderators. 
If you don't like what we're doing, or don't think we should be moderators, 
feel free to bring it to our attention (we are all very open minded 
people), but never forget you can always simply leave if you don't like it 
here.


Best wishes,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:22 AM 10/26/2002, you wrote:
>moderator = moderate = in moderation = in the middle = not
>opinionated or biased = non extreme point of view.... etc.

Moderator = simply the term Yahoo happens to use for "list administrators".

Main Entry: ad·min·is·tra·tor
Pronunciation: &d-'mi-n&-"strA-t&r, -"strA-"tor
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
a person legally vested with the right of administration of an estate



Best wishes,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >--- In logic-ot@y..., Jeremy Martin <martje@n...> wrote:
> > > At 08:09 PM 10/25/2002, you wrote:
> > >I think it's a shame everyone
> > > enjoys arguing so much over here that it has come to this. I
> > >wonder if  there's a name for a psychological disease in 
>which people are addicted to arguing?
> >
> At 09:17 AM 10/26/2002, you wrote:
 >Are you making a value judgment on whether it's good to argue
> >or not? I'd like to argue about that, if you don't mind. Your
> >argument that arguing is bad, mmmm-k, is a bit weak since 
>> it's an argument.

--- In logic-ot@y..., Jeremy Martin <martje@n...> wrote:
> I'm simply making the point that all of our lists are private lists, 
> "owned" by the admins. We are free to have whoever we want 
as moderators.> If you don't like what we're doing, or don't think 
we should be moderators,  feel free to bring it to our attention 
(we are all very open minded people), but never forget you can 
always simply leave if you don't like it  here.
> 
I was responding to you rather funny note, with a funny note. I 
didn't mean for you to take it so seriously.

teddybut

>I was responding to you rather funny note, with a funny note. I
>didn't mean for you to take it so seriously.

Ahh, sorry about that. There has been so much debating going on here lately 
I'm a little desensitized to silly/funny arguments vs real ones. ;-)

Best wishes,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hector wrote:
> Is this some sort of confusion tactic Alexis?   I have never seen so 
> many
> words that make so little sense.
>
> Orren's post on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

Right...uh huh...sure Hector, and you make perfect sense your self.  
Yeah, I am sure we agree on everything you said.

Whew, the belief forward motion while running on idle.

Yeah right.
Alexis

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 26-10-2002:

>At 09:17 AM 10/26/2002, you wrote:
>>--- In logic-ot@y..., Jeremy Martin <martje@n...> wrote:
>>  > At 08:09 PM 10/25/2002, you wrote:
>>  >I think it's a shame everyone
>>  > enjoys arguing so much over here that it has come to this. I
>>  >wonder if  there's a name for a psychological disease in which
>>  >people are addicted to arguing?
>>
>>Are you making a value judgment on whether it's good to argue
>>or not? I'd like to argue about that, if you don't mind. Your
>>argument that arguing is bad, mmmm-k, is a bit weak since it's
>>an argument.
>
>I'm simply making the point that all of our lists are private lists,
>"owned" by the admins. We are free to have whoever we want as moderators.
>If you don't like what we're doing, or don't think we should be moderators,
>feel free to bring it to our attention (we are all very open minded
>people), but never forget you can always simply leave if you don't like it
>here.

I'm sorry Jeremy, but some people here are trying to do exactly that: 
bring something to your attention, namely the fact that they don't 
like the prospect of having a "strictly musical" moderated L-OT list. 
Many of your replies to some valid arguments that have been made are 
somewhat weak in my opinion, and (thus?) spark even more reactions, 
etc, etc, ad nauseam.  And then you go about saying that people who 
like arguing have some sort of psychological disease.  I don't think 
I quite like that to be honest.  And then I'm even ignoring the fact 
that you seem to be as keen on an argument as the next guy...

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>> My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?

Tony Perreta wrote:
> My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.

Perhaps, Tony...If that is how you feel.  I can't argue a man, with a 
level head that just made sense in their dialogue.  If without 
reasonable doubt, that is the way you feel...then by all means, you do 
what you feel is viable.  There is no dishonor in resigning...it is 
brave to do so.  And it is respectful to others...it takes a bigger man 
to admit they are wrong or not able to change in light of things.  That 
is also a commendable trait in a human.

I am not saying you HAVE to, just cause I said so or IMPLIED it.  But...

a) One does have to be pliable when positioned with authority.

b) One should question themselves, if viably questioned by others.

This is why we have things like Internal Affairs, with regards to 
police...IA's position is very clear...To watch the watchers.  Sorry to 
say it, so far, most of the Mod Squad seems to be set on regarding 
Admin's as being right and that is it.  Case Closed.

I heard no admission of possibilities that indicate, that some of US 
may be right in our views.  None of the Admins here have said..."Hmmm, 
Henrik, I think you have made the best case".  Get my drift.  So far 
two factions, in disagreement and yet no compromise is being made.  So, 
now we are basically fighting over the very same thing we were 
moderated for debating.  LOL.

Yet, let's face it...I think I have deleted at least "50" AU/VST 
diatribes over the past few days, coming in from the LUG.  But hey, it 
is On Topic right?  Despite the fact that MOST of it is a long winded, 
misinformed crock of shit.  LOL.  Sorry, but true.   L-OT to me is just 
an asylum for the lunatics on the LUG...yeah, me to...guilty as 
charged...LOL.  I remember many of Mac vs. PC debate being diverted 
over here.  Is really the Mac vs. PC debate even on topic to music 
making with L-OT?  Think about it.  Not really...sorry no.  But I let 
it go...cause this is the asylum of where that can take place.

Peace,
Alexis

> >> My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?
>
> Tony Perreta wrote:
> > My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.
>
> Perhaps, Tony...If that is how you feel.  I can't argue a man, with a
> level head that just made sense in their dialogue.

Sorry?

I am one of the admin team simply because at a time when the LUG was 'messy'
very few answered Jeremy's initial email asking for assitance. Jeremy sent out a
further email to whihc I replied saying that I didn't consider myself a
prominent member (tho I have been on and off the LUG since 96) but was willing
to help out on an ad hoc basis when there is any need. I have no interest in
moderating, and have never moderated, the L-OT.

> a) One does have to be pliable when positioned with authority.

huh?

> b) One should question themselves, if viably questioned by others.

Agreed.

> This is why we have things like Internal Affairs, with regards to
> police...IA's position is very clear...To watch the watchers.  Sorry to
> say it, so far, most of the Mod Squad seems to be set on regarding
> Admin's as being right and that is it.  Case Closed.

This is not the case - the moderators have all talked about this and some of us
are unclear (I include myself) as to the r\ufffdle of the L-OT. Hence the poll. Hence
many of the msgs by moderators merely defending Jeremy's position as list admin.

> I heard no admission of possibilities that indicate, that some of US
> may be right in our views.

You can't have been reading all the emails then. I have said that I have no
position as to what the L-OT should be. Though I do have a philosophical
position with repsect to the freedom of speech arguments put forward by others.
It might be that u did not realise I was an admin.

> None of the Admins here have said..."Hmmm,
> Henrik, I think you have made the best case".

Maybe if we thought he had we would have said so.

> Get my drift.  So far
> two factions, in disagreement and yet no compromise is being made.

Er ... Jeremy has agreed to let the poll dictate the nature of the list. What
more compromise would u propose?

> So,
> now we are basically fighting over the very same thing we were
> moderated for debating.  LOL.

This isn't a fight Alexis. You are just misintepreting the admin's position
despite it seeming to be clear to me.

> Yet, let's face it...I think I have deleted at least "50" AU/VST
> diatribes over the past few days, coming in from the LUG.

You and I both.

> But hey, it
> is On Topic right?

I would say so tho sometimes one wonders.

> Despite the fact that MOST of it is a long winded,
> misinformed crock of shit.  LOL.  Sorry, but true.   L-OT to me is just
> an asylum for the lunatics on the LUG >

Feel free to vote that way in the poll.

> ...yeah, me to...guilty as
> charged...LOL.  I remember many of Mac vs. PC debate being diverted
> over here.  Is really the Mac vs. PC debate even on topic to music
> making with L-OT?

Yes. It is like debating the merits of microphones. Some like to use expensive
Royer ribbon mics on guitar cabs and others super cheap SM57s (the greatest mic
ever). Having said this I must admit to finding MAC or PC evangelists for the
most part the worst thing on the LUG. I have no problem with informed opinions
and comparisons.

> Think about it.  Not really...sorry no.  But I let
> it go...cause this is the asylum of where that can take place.

I think the problem, as astutely highlighted by Jeremy, is that some people
think the L-OT is one thing and others another. Is the L-OT here to serve the
LUG or have unlimited scope? I guess a decision will be made one way or the
other.

Alexis - hows about we just wait for the final outcome and abide by it? I for
one don't care which way it goes.

Tony Perretta

--- In logic-ot@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote:
> I'm sorry Jeremy, but some people here are trying to do 
> exactly that: bring something to your attention, namely 
> the fact that they don't like the prospect of having a 
> "strictly musical" moderated L-OT list. 

Yes, that definitely came to my attention, as well as the attention 
to the other admins. Which is why we created the poll, instead of 
specifically focusing the list on music related issues. I was 
referring to people suggesting other admins do not make a good 
moderator, should resign, etc. 

> Many of your replies to some valid arguments that have 
> been made are somewhat weak in my opinion, and (thus?) 
> spark even more reactions, etc, etc, ad nauseam.  

That's the problem: I was thinking the exact same thing about other 
people's replies. Obviously the group here is split nearly 50/50 on 
this issue. We are not all going to agree about this. 

> And then you go about saying that people who like arguing 
> have some sort of psychological disease.  I don't think 
> I quite like that to be honest.  

I was just joking, but still, some people don't seem to be able to 
give this a rest and just wait for the poll to conclude.

> And then I'm even ignoring the fact that you seem to be 
> as keen on an argument as the next guy...

Honestly I don't care that much what you guys talk about here. If 
members hadn't started writing/complaining to the admins about things 
we would not have done anything. When people start bringing issues to 
my attention that make perfect sense to me (e.g. keeping this Emagic-
related list focused loosely on music-related things only, but 
nothing that will always eventually start big flame wars such as 
politics) what can I do but reply to the constant barrage of 
argumentative posts people have been writing? In my opinion any time 
list members are offended enough to write to the admins or start 
unsubscribing in disgust, something is wrong. When a large number of 
members express a valid opinion but don't wish to argue about it 
repeatedly in public, I feel as if its my job as an admin to help 
express their perfectly side of this issue. If no one were to argue 
about this issue anymore I'd gladly wait for the poll to conclude in 
silence..

Jeremy

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 26-10-2002:

>  > And then you go about saying that people who like arguing
>>  have some sort of psychological disease.  I don't think
>>  I quite like that to be honest. 
>
>I was just joking, but still, some people don't seem to be able to
>give this a rest and just wait for the poll to conclude.

Maybe some people have given arguments as to why a poll is bound to 
be inconclusive or why the validity of the outcome might still be 
debatable.

On the one hand you say this group is not a democracy but an 
oligarchy.  Yet you use a democratic mechanism to determine 
list-policy.  And at the same time this same democratic mechanism is 
bound to fail, for reasons explained earlier. Puzzling.  And thus 
sparking more debate.  Oh well...

>  > And then I'm even ignoring the fact that you seem to be
>>  as keen on an argument as the next guy...
>
>Honestly I don't care that much what you guys talk about here. If
>members hadn't started writing/complaining to the admins about things
>we would not have done anything. When people start bringing issues to
>my attention that make perfect sense to me (e.g. keeping this Emagic-
>related list focused loosely on music-related things only, but
>nothing that will always eventually start big flame wars such as
>politics) what can I do but reply to the constant barrage of
>argumentative posts people have been writing?

You could ignore them and simply refer everyone to the to-be outcome 
of the poll for example.  But, as I said, you like a good debate as 
much as the next guy.  I don't mind (to the contrary) -- but then 
don't go about offending "us argumentative types" as suffering from a 
disease, since you're not that different.  Not at all.

>If no one were to argue about this issue anymore I'd gladly wait for 
>the poll to conclude in silence..

I'll shut up.  Fed up with all of this, and got better things to do 
than defend some right I think people have against moderators who 
think they know better, based on the opinion of a handful of 
complainers.
I think it was Alexis who made a good point when he referred to some 
extremely boring discussions on the LUG: VST vs AU, etc, or the Mac 
vs PC debates being routed to the L-OT.  Is any of those really on 
topic?  A zillion VST/AU messages with extremely little informational 
contents?  Or a PC/Mac debate -- is that L-OT stuff?  Apparently it 
is, according to the powers in charge.  No problem with that: as 
Dennis said, that's what you got a delete-key for.

The problem is: where do you draw the border?  At some arbitrary 
point, apparently.  Because someone decides something is offensive. 
Or because someone decides something is not appropriate.  Or because 
3 or 4 members complain to the moderators.  Or whatever.  And it's 
this arbitrariness (?) that I protest against.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Tony Perretta wrote:
>>>> My questioning now is...Is Orren Merton suited to be a moderator?
>>
>> Tony Perreta wrote:
>>> My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.
>>
>> Perhaps, Tony...If that is how you feel.  I can't argue a man, with a
>> level head that just made sense in their dialogue.
> Sorry?

I was giving praise to your implied decision and congratulating you for 
being a bigger man to do so.

>  I have no interest in
> moderating, and have never moderated, the L-OT.

Great.  I was never asked.  How do you like that...LOL.  I guess they 
think I am mess or something...LOL.  Rightfully so...LOL, since most 
seem to think so.  But get to know me, and you will find different.  
But, even if I was offered, I probably wouldn't...since I couldn't 
possibly devote the attention it deserved.

I think that they chose people, then asked...was Dennis ever asked?  
eeeh...perish the thought...LOL.  I would have to Runawaaaaaay, 
runawaaaaay.  Actually, I think Dennis would make a great Admin for 
LUG, but not for L-OT...LOL.

>> a) One does have to be pliable when positioned with authority.
> huh?

If a person takes on a responsibility, they have to be flexible and 
open to change.

pli·a·ble   Pronunciation Key  (pl-bl)
adj.
1.	Easily bent or shaped. See Synonyms at malleable.
2.	Receptive to change; adaptable: pliable attitudes.
3.	Easily influenced, persuaded, or swayed; tractable.

>> b) One should question themselves, if viably questioned by others.
> Agreed.

Well then...what I see Henrik in total frustration.  Do you honestly 
think that it is okay to take a "well respected colleague of ours" and 
push him to his limits of frustration.  When he is in fact posing the 
best support for the concept?  Anybody with true objectivity reads what 
he is saying will say, "hey, he is making sense."  Which I did 
insinuate in my last post to.

>> This is why we have things like Internal Affairs, with regards to
>> police...IA's position is very clear...To watch the watchers.  Sorry 
>> to
>> say it, so far, most of the Mod Squad seems to be set on regarding
>> Admin's as being right and that is it.  Case Closed.
>
> This is not the case - the moderators have all talked about this and 
> some of us
> are unclear (I include myself) as to the rôle of the L-OT.

Okay...Then why moderate what is unclear to you even?

> Hence the poll. Hence
> many of the msgs by moderators merely defending Jeremy's position as 
> list admin.

I never questioned his position...in fact what you were originally 
responding to was me questioning Orren's Position with his own 
diatribe...LOL.  Right?   I made quite clear in the original that I 
thought Jeremy was being more level headed than Orren was...remember?

>> I heard no admission of possibilities that indicate, that some of US
>> may be right in our views.
>
> You can't have been reading all the emails then.

Are you kidding me?  ...Ack!  Mostly yes...but really fixated on Henrik 
and Jeremy.  But I can't read it all.  But teddybut also stated some 
interesting things.  But some I just can't read through, just cause it 
is pure babble and divides, rather than bring a conclusion that 
everyone is content with.

> I have said that I have no
> position as to what the L-OT should be. Though I do have a 
> philosophical
> position with repsect to the freedom of speech arguments put forward 
> by others.
> It might be that u did not realise I was an admin.

You said to me...you agreed and stood by Orren's words...therefore by 
indicating that was your position.  I know your an Admin, just as I 
know there is a Mr. Simpson, Orren Merton, YOU and Jeremy are Admins, 
though I don't really know the others.

Again...you wrote, in view of Orren:
My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.

You aligned yourself with Orren.  Which made you seem like you made 
your decision.

>> None of the Admins here have said..."Hmmm,
>> Henrik, I think you have made the best case".
>
> Maybe if we thought he had we would have said so.

Well, that depends.  Are you looking at it from a position of being an 
Admin or looking at it as "objectively" removed from being either?  
That right there is what being in an authoritative positions is about.  
That is what WE are questioning...are U looking at this objectively?  
What is good for the collective, not the one.

>> Get my drift.  So far
>> two factions, in disagreement and yet no compromise is being made.
>
> Er ... Jeremy has agreed to let the poll dictate the nature of the 
> list. What
> more compromise would u propose?

Again, all I see is Henrik in total frustration.  I voted, yet there 
seems to be no resolution.  Because now there seems to be a debate over 
what type of moderation and how to justify it.  In one way it can be 
viewed as threatening the service of moderation, for lenient 
moderation.  "well do you want me to protect you from spammers, then 
you have to do it my way."  So to speak, that was an implied view I 
perceived.  Or the fact, seemingly the vote of the "Freedom 8" who 
oppose, don't outweigh the "Mod Squad 7".  That and because the other 
592 members don't cast a vote, that vote goes in favor of the Mod Squad 
7.  We can all dispute the electoral vote.

>> So,
>> now we are basically fighting over the very same thing we were
>> moderated for debating.  LOL.
>
> This isn't a fight Alexis. You are just misintepreting the admin's 
> position
> despite it seeming to be clear to me.

You're right...to strong a word "fight".  So, let me rephrase that.

So, now we are basically "debating" over the very same thing we were 
moderated for debating.  LOL.

>> Yet, let's face it...I think I have deleted at least "50" AU/VST
>> diatribes over the past few days, coming in from the LUG.
>
> You and I both.

Okay...so you see.  Though AU/VST is not really all that On Topic, it 
is effectively On Topic to the LUG.  Despite that it is in fact boorish 
attempt of debating paranoia, etc.

>> But hey, it
>> is On Topic right?
>
> I would say so tho sometimes one wonders.

I have been wondering for days...LOL.  Days.  But I certainly see, that 
neither have any of the Admin's see it fit for moderating the topic of 
AU/VST.  So, sometimes we effectively act on tolerance and use the 
delete key...despite what people think or do or say.

>> Despite the fact that MOST of it is a long winded,
>> misinformed crock of shit.  LOL.  Sorry, but true.   L-OT to me is 
>> just
>> an asylum for the lunatics on the LUG >
>
> Feel free to vote that way in the poll.

I did.  I went to the polls, and voted.

>> ...yeah, me to...guilty as
>> charged...LOL.  I remember many of Mac vs. PC debate being diverted
>> over here.  Is really the Mac vs. PC debate even on topic to music
>> making with L-OT?
>
> Yes. It is like debating the merits of microphones. Some like to use 
> expensive
> Royer ribbon mics on guitar cabs and others super cheap SM57s (the 
> greatest mic
> ever). Having said this I must admit to finding MAC or PC evangelists 
> for the
> most part the worst thing on the LUG. I have no problem with informed 
> opinions
> and comparisons.

Yes...neither do I.  But some of these so called "informed opinions" 
are not as informed as they should be.  Just Misinformed Crocks of 
shit.  So, you kind of go with flow, make attempts at corrections.  
etc, etc.  But tolerance is the acceptable policy for that concept and 
so is the delete key.

>> Think about it.  Not really...sorry no.  But I let
>> it go...cause this is the asylum of where that can take place.
>
> I think the problem, as astutely highlighted by Jeremy, is that some 
> people
> think the L-OT is one thing and others another. Is the L-OT here to 
> serve the
> LUG or have unlimited scope? I guess a decision will be made one way 
> or the
> other.

Actually, the problem is that those who think it one way are correct, 
with the intent for how L-OT was applied in the past.  Other's can 
think to be deemed correct, but the intent of L-OT was NOT built the 
way they think it was.  The original intent was to apply an asylum for 
the lunatics.  That has always been my view of the L-OT.  Why do you 
think I am here?  LOL.

Look, I can sit here and say..."I am offended by all the Apple/Mac 
hatred".  I could have made great arguments for separating the lists 
too.  Put PC here and Mac over there.  But it often really came down to 
one thing...The PC and Mac People COLLECTIVELY and OBJECTIVELY realized 
the benefits of learning from the more experienced users wether Mac or 
PC.  Like Henrik, is again a great example.  A Mac user, teaching PC 
users about MIDI.  He effectively adds to both user groups.  Yet, I 
personally don't like Howie Wooten, and in certain cases he is wrong.  
But I don't expect the Admin's to gag him, based on my one opinion of 
him.  Because he still offers some basis of knowledge to other users.

I could effectively tear apart Howie Wooten in front all the Admins.  
Show his Bias, his misinformation, and demure like tactics of posing 
and opening debate.  But I don't.  I got better things to do, than sit 
around finding ways to gag him.  One thing is for me to dislike him, 
the other is to gag him from his view, which entails that one day I 
would have to endure the same thing...LOL.  Get my drift.  I am careful 
to what I vote for, because one day, I just might get it.

> Alexis - hows about we just wait for the final outcome and abide by 
> it? I for
> one don't care which way it goes.

Well if you don't care "which way it goes", then why say anything at 
all.
Again you wrote:

>>> My views align entirely with his - so maybe we should both resign.

Where are you...to me, it seems you're now wavering.  Where as before 
you made your position quite clear.  Now, you tell me one thing, then 
you tell me another.  Hey, that is okay man, I am not trying to demean 
ya...but effectively, right now you're just unclear in your position.  
I think you originally set out to instinctually protect your buddy 
Orren.  But some how, by saying "you don't care which way it goes" is 
implying to me:  Then why say anything at all?

Peace,
Alexis

--- In logic-ot@y..., Alexis Aiosa <wirehead1@a...> wrote:
> Tony Perretta wrote:

> Henrik, is again a great example.   
> Peace,
> Alexis

Hey AA,

are you secretly in love with Henrik? hahahaha

I really think the admins should have just taken the ball in their 
able hands and made a DAW-OT list for the complainers and 
thus avoided all this debate over moderation. They didn't do that, 
so were stuck here voting on a one sided poll. If they want to be 
democratic about it and have a poll, at least they should include 
an option for keeping the OT-list how it is and moving the 
complainers. That way it would be a less one sided poll, 
seemingly favoring the complainers, who certainly also have a 
right to be accomodated. 

It makes more sense to me that way. Why have a list soley 
devoted to L-Politics when there are so many very off topic things 
being discussed here that the complainers are offended by? 
When the music theory, university choice or PC vs Mac wars 
come up, they can go where they have always gone without 
making a new list for EVERY topic not related to DAWs. Like I 
said: what's next a poll about a new L-OT-laundry detergent list?

so do you guys and gals like Coke or Pepsi.
teddybut

Hello Alexis

Your thrust seems to be that you think my views and those of Orren cannot
coexist. I find them wholly congruent but have no desire to reiterate them. I
was trying to supply some clarity not provoke you - clearly I failed.

You will find that Jeremy posted a number of msgs directly to the LUG regarding
the recruitment of administrators.

Furthermore I think this list is a dogmatic nightmare with limited potential. I
was looking forward to insights regarding stuff deemed too OT for the LUG and am
duly unsubscribing.

Good luck to all

Tony Perretta

Jeremy wrote:
>
> Honestly I don't care that much what you guys talk about here. If
> members hadn't started writing/complaining to the admins about things
> we would not have done anything.

Well there is a lot that I could effectively complain about...really.  
But at certain point one has to say, this:  "Are you going to stop the 
AU/VST discussion" or not?  Cause I can complain, bitch and moan like 
an anal probe...but does my one complaint outweigh the majority?  Does 
this mean you have to waver and compromise just for me?

> When people start bringing issues to
> my attention that make perfect sense to me (e.g. keeping this Emagic-
> related list focused loosely on music-related things only, but
> nothing that will always eventually start big flame wars such as
> politics)

Uhm...there was pretty much an ongoing debate...I didn't really see 
much in the way of insults...I saw a pretty healthy debate.  But yes, 
it did get a little messy later on.

> what can I do but reply to the constant barrage of
> argumentative posts people have been writing? In my opinion any time
> list members are offended enough to write to the admins or start
> unsubscribing in disgust, something is wrong.

Well Neo Nazi's and white supremist groups recently demonstrated in the 
streets of Washington.  Does that mean that because I am offended I 
have to unsubscribe from the USA, in disgust?  Should I just pack it up 
and move to Bali, and take my chances there?  Or maybe, I will moved to 
France, at least there are plenty of places a person can SMOKE.

Funny thing how people here in Los Angeles, bitch and moan about people 
even smoking outside on the outdoor portion of cafe.  Yet don't realize 
the "Acceptable Emission Levels of Carbon Monoxide" coming from the 
cars driving by.  Then after being offended by the Smoke...They get 
back into a Gas Guzzling SUV, and talk on the Cell phone while driving. 
  Yet, the true question evades their mind...is the toxic pollution 
caused by 4 million smokers, 32 million vehicles pouring onto Los 
Angeles streets everyday?  Some using MTBE treated Gasoline.

Hey...I get offended when people drink alcohol to get drunk.  Does that 
mean I should vote in favor of Prohibition, just cause I am offended by 
drunkards?  Or do I just ignore those I don't like, and let those I do 
like have drink once in while?

At least I have the option of picking the good apples, from the bad 
ones.

Again...One thing is being politically correct, the other is being so 
politically correct it is overtly anal and not realizing ones own 
hypocrisy.  For every gag order one calls to arms with, is eventually a 
gag order that comes back to haunt you.

In other words...we can't protect everybody from debate or what is 
offensive.  You have just tell them...sorry that is the rules of this 
list, you just have use the delete key.  We apologize for the 
inconvenience.

Peace,
Alexis

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 26-10-2002:
> >I was just joking, but still, some people don't seem to be able to
> >give this a rest and just wait for the poll to conclude.

Hendrik writes
> On the one hand you say this group is not a democracy but an 
> oligarchy.  Yet you use a democratic mechanism to determine 
> list-policy.  

Yes, exactly. The oligarchy decided, in this particular case, to use 
a poll to decide this issue, since the members were split so evenly 
on it. 

> And at the same time this same democratic mechanism is 
> bound to fail, for reasons explained earlier. Puzzling.  

That "fact" is endlessly debatable...

> Maybe some people have given arguments as to why a poll 
> is bound to be inconclusive or why the validity of the 
> outcome might still be debatable.

Please see my previous two sentences.

> ... since you're not that different.  Not at all.

When did I say I was? I just prefer to do my debating (and talking 
about politics) on lists I'm not an admin of. I guess I'm odd, but 
actually I prefer to do that sort of thing privately, where I think 
it belongs. 

> I think it was Alexis who made a good point when he referred 
> to some extremely boring discussions on the LUG: VST vs AU, 
> etc, or the Mac vs PC debates being routed to the L-OT.  Is 
> any of those really on topic?  A zillion VST/AU messages with 
> extremely little informational contents?  

Now that Emagic is owned by Apple, it makes sense to let people ask 
their questions here about the new plugin format that Emagic is 
promoting. 

If you check the archives, it looks like the whole Mac vs PC thread 
(actually entitled Cubase SX Crossgrade question) was started by an 
innocent question, posted here by Paul Stephenson by his own free 
will. We have never redirected OS wars to this list as far as I know.

Paul Stephenson
> The problem is: where do you draw the border?  At some arbitrary 
> point, apparently.  Because someone decides something is offensive. 
> Or because someone decides something is not appropriate.  Or 
> because 3 or 4 members complain to the moderators.  Or whatever.  
> And it's this arbitrariness (?) that I protest against.

Of course we have to have use an arbitrary point. If we had no rules 
at all, "as this list approaches infinity" a never ending flamewar is 
bound to happen, eventually. I don't think you want us to not use an 
arbitrary point - I think you'd rather we just used your own 
(arguably less) arbitrary point, instead of ours. 

Best wishes,
Jeremy Martin; sadus@...                        
http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus <-- music links, PC DAW parts list

Hey Tony,

Tony Perretta wrote:
> Hello Alexis
>
> Your thrust seems to be that you think my views and those of Orren 
> cannot
> coexist. I find them wholly congruent but have no desire to reiterate 
> them.

I found them in contradiction.  But you have every right to express 
your views in any form you want.  That is called "what little freedoms 
we have."

>  I was trying to supply some clarity not provoke you - clearly I 
> failed.

You didn't totally fail, you just had loop holes...swiss cheese like.  
So, I poked at them.

> You will find that Jeremy posted a number of msgs directly to the LUG 
> regarding
> the recruitment of administrators.

That was just a punning...I really wouldn't be cut out for it.

> Furthermore I think this list is a dogmatic nightmare with limited 
> potential.

Hey, "I keep my friends close, I keep my enemies closer."  A dogmatic 
nightmare is worthy effort since it serves to challenge and keep one 
sharp.

>  I was looking forward to insights regarding stuff deemed too OT for 
> the LUG and am
> duly unsubscribing.

I am sorry to here that Tony, you seem like a good individual that is 
capable of managing L-OT and LUG, cause of your flexibility.  But I 
can't viably say that it was clear in your intent of the dialogue.  But 
certainly now, unsubscribing just means you given up, which I find 
unnecessary.

I don't think you should do that, but hey if that is what you 
want...again, I can't stop you, from what is right for you.

Peace,
Alexis

Thoughts from the mind of Jeremy Martin, 28-10-2002:

>  > The problem is: where do you draw the border?  At some arbitrary
>>  point, apparently.  Because someone decides something is offensive.
>>  Or because someone decides something is not appropriate.  Or
>>  because 3 or 4 members complain to the moderators.  Or whatever. 
>>  And it's this arbitrariness (?) that I protest against.
>
>Of course we have to have use an arbitrary point. If we had no rules
>at all, "as this list approaches infinity" a never ending flamewar is
>bound to happen, eventually. I don't think you want us to not use an
>arbitrary point - I think you'd rather we just used your own
>(arguably less) arbitrary point, instead of ours.

No, I don't want you to use 'a point' at all -- that has been my 
point (uh, pun intended?) all along.  There will never be a never 
ending flamewar (if only because the sun dies in approx. another 5 
billion years. :-).  Seriously though: flamewars tend to end by 
themselves, always.  That's 16 years of internet experience talking 
(usenet, webbased lists, email lists, etc).  I've hardly ever seen a 
flamewar go on for more than 4 weeks -- and those were serious 
exceptions.  And if such a thing every occurs, I know where the 
delete-key is.  If we take all the time all of us have spent 
discussing this subject, and if we'd used this same time to 
constantly hit the delete-key, we could have deleted all 
inappropriate, offensive, too-off-topic, etc threads for the next 20 
years.  It's that easy, really.  So, once more, I don't see the point 
of stepping in at _all_ , at whichever point.

I never anywhere suggested that I could offer a better criterium as 
to when moderators should step in.  At the risk of sounding arrogant: 
I know beter than to make such pointless suggestions.  And if you 
still think I try to defend my own, equally arbitrary "point of 
drawing the line", then I'm afraid I haven't managed very well in 
getting my point across.  I'm sorry.


-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 08:14  AM, teddybut wrote:
> --- In logic-ot@y..., Alexis Aiosa <wirehead1@a...> wrote:
>> Tony Perretta wrote:
>
>> Henrik, is again a great example.
>> Peace,
>> Alexis
>
> Hey AA,
>
> are you secretly in love with Henrik? hahahaha

How'd you guess, am I that obvious, gosh how embarrassing.

Love is in the air here at L-OT Singles.

kidding aside, HK really makes sense.

> I really think the admins should have just taken the ball in their
> able hands and made a DAW-OT list for the complainers and
> thus avoided all this debate over moderation.

Hmmm...Okay.  So let the whiners go to DAW-OT, but keep L-OT for the 
people that don't mind.  So they move, not us.  ssshhh, we are winning 
the vote, too late to make sense now...LOL

>  Like I
> said: what's next a poll about a new L-OT-laundry detergent list?

Then we would have the "L-OT-Using Logic While Stoned" list.

> so do you guys and gals like Coke or Pepsi.

Coke, but that fucked up my nose in the 80's and 90's.  errr, wrong 
coke...my bad.

Cherry coke...didn't like Vanilla Coke, nor did I like Pepsi Twist.

I am Cherry Coke man myself.

Though I like Britney Spears ass, so I like the Pepsi commercials.

Peace,
Alexis