================================================ Subject: Thanks for recap From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Wed 11 Jul 2001 18:46:32 -0400 ================================================ Debbi, Thanks for the recap of the past issues. I was probably one of the strongest adversaries for the copyright issue. But as I stated earlier. Stronger issues survive the bickering. as long as the people in the discussion avoid concentration on the bashing of the issues. And stay tuned to the feelings on the issue. I stick to just keeping the issues civil. Though anger is OK to express. If related to the issues and not the person. Later, Jim ------------- Debbi R wrote: > I'm the one that originally brought the "philosophy threads" into the > argument. And I specifically said that even though I didn't > participate, I enjoyed following them. Here's a snippet of my post -- > nah it's the whole thing. It's a true work of art. Heh. > > ****************************** beginning of old post > ************************ > > > I'd hardly call this list a war zone. Some mildly amusing > entertainment, maybe. But not even close to a war zone. Certainly not > with the "i'm taking my ball and going home" attitude that people have > here. > > let's see... i'm reading through the archives. > > in the past few weeks, we've had: > > * a short thread of the upcoming album release date - not much to > really talk about there except start thrashing on the receptionist at > wind-up for insisting that her incorrect information is true. > * post after post ad nauseum about the meaning of life and virtual > reality. That one, although I was only lurking, was actually quite > interesting most of the time. > * I tried to get a discussion going about intellectual property rights > as it relates to music ala napster and got my ass kicked for a) being a > newbie that simply doesn't understand what this list is REALLY about, 2) > a hypocrite for wanting to discuss something that i'm admittedly > involved in, 3) abusing the list privileges, 4) flooding the list with > worthless posts and jeopardizing the daily limit, and countless other > things that i care not to repeat online. > * a brief tour update for some popular bands - this thread lasted less > than 2 days > * Why marilyn manson sucks or doesn't suck, depending on your view - (I > might add that this one was going fine and was worth reading until > someone got accused of getting *gasp* personal, whereupon it immediately > began imploding) > * someone circulating the rumor that he *thinks* he *might* have heard > *somewhere* that scotts *might* be in rehab for cocaine addiction. That > was an interesting one -- listening to everyone's speculation on the > most ambivalent rumor i've ever seen. > * about 8947574839 forwarded jokes > * scott's semi-regular virus updates (generally timed after the usual > 938574739 virus hoax postings) > * the usual 4957577636 requests for help unsubscribing > > It's still escaped me - where the list is of what discussion is allowed > and what isn't. As I mentioned last week (or maybe not... i kept > several mails in my drafts folder and never sent them), the "what's > allowed" list tends to change depending on the day, the subject matter, > who's involved and any combination of those things. If we get our ass > kicked for being personal, we never get to know one another. That > doesn't make for very interesting conversation. There's only so many > concert reviews and upcoming show reports to go around. If we do get > into interesting and spirited discussions, someone with thin skin > inevitably dives in with accusations of personal slander and hijacks the > entire thread despite attempts to get it back on track. > > What's the answer? Who knows. I'm planning to just wait it out. Maybe > when everyone that is uncomfortable leaves, it will only leave those > that are comfortable in this type of social environment. If not, i'll > just continue to do what i do. Jim Asks: > Being a major poster during the philosophy thread. I would like to add > that it was us more philosophical listers talking among each other and > it was just as fair game to be non-Creed related as anything else. So > did you not like the philosophy debate? -- Indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory. -- Winston Churchill, on General Montgomery To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp