Carlo Rose wrote:
> In my opinion, it would helpful and more edifying to the discussion 
> forum if you all can take your complaints and criticisms about Chad's 
> chadism's off the discussion forum or just accept him for who he 
> is. Sometimes people are not able to give the responses in the detail 
> that we all want when we want it sometimes, because we're responding at 
> work during break or lunch or what have you.  No one is required to 
> answer direct questions in the time frames and detail that the 
> questioner is asking.  Some people are busy with families and many 
> commitments with church.  My guess is that if all were required to give 
> the detail answer that many wanted, some would only have time to answer 
> one question per week and probably only during the weekend.

Time does not really apply to Chad because the man does not sleep.  He 
is just as likely to post at 1:00AM as he is 1:00PM.  ;-)

> I would be lying if I said there wasn't anything that Chad did or others 
> for that matter that didn't annoy me and sometimes I do respond in kind 
> with one liners to him like, "I disagree" or recently, "Yes, I did read 
> it." I know there are many things that tick you all off about what I 
> do.  Welcome to the sinful world.  Unless there is verbal abuse which I 
> don't see any from him, let's model mature Christianity more and accept 
> each other for the imperfect Christians we are.  (I'm not saying that 
> Chad or any of you are imperfect Christians).  :=)

This issue I raised was not merely to address something annoying.  If I 
addressed every annoyance on this list, I would never stop posting. 
(Okay, that was sort of tongue-in-cheek.)  I raised the issue I did for 
the reasons I will outline next.

> In my opinion, the moderators are pretty good at catching things when 
> things get too far.  Let's model their forbearance.  Usually, no news 
> from them, is good news.  That doesn't mean everyone is behaving exactly 
> as they should, but it hasn't reached the level where something needs to 
> be said. 

I am a geek, through and through.  I have been using Linux *as a home 
user* for eleven years.  I have been involved in various mailing lists 
during most of those eleven years.  Mailing lists and USENET (upon which 
mailing lists are based) have been around for over 30 years.  During 
this time certain things have emerged.  Netiquette is one of them.  (I 
know, I know.  I said I would draft a proposal for this list; I will.) 
Based on decades of experience certain rules (perhaps "best practices" 
is a better term) have emerged for how a mailing list is regulated.  If 
a mailing list has to rely on its *moderators* to moderate, that list is 
dying and is likely not worth the time.  The best mailing lists are 
self-regulated.  That is, the members of that list from time to time 
correct errors and/or problems.  On some lists that means one or more 
posters are abusing the list with excessive posts or with off-topic 
posts or with abusive (or merely harsh) language.  When these happen on 
a *good* list, the members correct it.  The moderators only get involved 
when this self-correction fails utterly.  This happened on this list 
with a fellow last winter, I believe.  A poster was spouting heresy and 
would not change even after repeated correction by the *members*.  When 
this failed, the moderators banned him from the list.  This is how a 
mailing list should be run.  One member gets out of hand and a couple 
others get after him about it.  This *is* helpful *and* edifying because 
it improves communication.  The whole point of a mailing list is 
communication.  Anything that inhibits or adversely affects 
communication must be corrected - by the members.
--
john-thomas