<html> <body> Andre - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Do you see this specifically as an American societal problem?  (How could that be possible?) But, more to the point, what are the list rules that seem to you to have suddenly changed?   Since you wrote this above my own post, I'm wondering if there is something I said to elicit your response.   hypersensitively yours, David Skolnik At 12:54 AM 2/15/2004 +0100, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I have learned from it that to be able to communicate one had to follow certain rules, rules I personally have not made. I have also learned that as soon as somebody here started talking about religious and political issues, immediately a heated discussion (and sometimes more than heated) would take place to ensure that we only discus piano related matters. (forgot about BB?) Apparently that all seems changed now. You know folks, it's all fine with me. I am just an outsider, (and indeed, I do make many writing mistakes) and this list is in origin an American list, so in order to be a subscriber, I 'll try to find my way through the list rules, which, apparently now suddenly seem to change. friendly greetings from André Oorebeek </blockquote> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On 14-feb-04, at 20:39, David Skolnik wrote: Andre, David, Sarah, Y'all- First, I think that the acceptance and use of the OT designation has been remarkably successful...(exceptin' for the Porsche thread)... almost as much so as the success of municipalities in convincing their citizenry, whether peasant or royalty, to pick up after their pets.  It allows me, in my manual archiving, to simply channel non-technical posts to their own location, where I can look at them if I so choose, without distracting me when I'm reviewing the technical posts.  This list has long had what could rightly be called a "DON'T ASK! DON'T TELL" policy.  That is, we have elected to acknowledge only enough of each other to allow a singular conversation.. about pianos.  In theory, it wouldn't matter if a contributor has perpetrated some outrageous act, or holds repugnant beliefs.  If their contributions to the list conform to our expectations of content and form, then they have fulfilled the primary list requirements.  So, what deep need is being fulfilled by the periodic venture "OFF TOPIC" ?    It's natural for an active mind to make associations, and sometimes it helps to relieve the tension engendered by having to monitor and filter what one says to those who have become a kind of community.  But, is there a difference between an "OT" which is simply observational, and one which is intended or can be expected to be controversial or inflammatory?  In fact, I think we feel the periodic need to remind ourselves that the world we have created with this list is not real, and that there IS a difference between a cyber community and, dare I say, a real" one.   In the latter, we cannot easily choose to ignore those qualities that challenge our own values.  While we share common endeavors and interests, we reflect a tremendous range of experience, opinion, and convictions and we may not wish to or be able to acknowledge the validity of an opposing view.  What do you suppose the effect on the list would be, of our knowing the political, religious, sexual, or other preferences of each of the contributors?  Would it, in some subtle (or not) way, affect the way we interact with each other?  This is, for the most part, a comfortably or uncomfortably amoral environment, depending on your point of view. We might choose (theoretically) to have yet another, separate place (list) expressly for those sorts of exchanges... one which, like ptg-l, would have controlled access.  If a few people want to have such a dialog, they would retire to that list, whose contents would notbe archived with the regular list, a concern I find reasonable. However if, in fact, the motivation is to "witness" ones beliefs in as broad a public as possible, or to change the beliefs of others, such a separate list would probably prove inadequate.  In that case, the only hope would be the conscious commitment to respect the principles by which this list has thrived. And then, of course, in these times of Homeland Security, there's those paranoid types amoung(st?)  us (why do you think I'm talking about you?) who suspect that any statement of conviction might be read and noted by invasive authorities. HOW ABOUT IT ANDY?  A FIGHT LIST? Rambling pomposity at its best - David Skolnik - </blockquote> </body> </html>