14 Feb
2007
14 Feb
'07
12:11 a.m.
On 2/13/07, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
Maybe because there's no clear guidelines of what exactly is considered
acceptable off topicness on this list? ;-) Kind of like what happened in my
thread...IMO they should specify what exactly is acceptably OT to keep this
kind of stuff from happening, it's too open ended now and results on people
stepping on each others toes...
>> What this has taught me that corporate
monied interests are amoral,
looking only to increase profit. Similarly,
governments largely
exist to serve their own interests and, for the most part, not the
interests
of the governed.
Typical that at least one cctalker would reply with such idiocy. Grant
asked for opinions about the book itself. There's absolutely no reason to
go OT and include a moronic political opinion too.
Why can't people understand that "on-topic and off-topic posts" in the
list
header does mean we've got carte blanche to say any assinine thing?