[Peace-discuss] AWARE

[C. G. Estabrook]

Oh, come on, Stuart.  "Wading through this stuff" is a rather distant metaphor. 
Every message comes with the name of the author and some indication of subject. 
  Push a button and delete the ones you don't want to read.

We should err on the side of too much speech, not too little.  There's often 
something sinister about calls for people to shut up -- on the air, in print, on 
the net, in universities, or in the public square.

Such calls often seem to me like enforcements of the control Orwell talks about 
in the (suppressed) preface to "Animal Farm," that if you have been properly 
educated, you simply have instilled into you the understanding that there are 
certain things "it wouldn't do to say"...  --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:02:47PM -0500, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> Joy,
>>
>> I interpret your commentary about an "arena for both of you" as your 
>> actually wanting to leave the arena
>> and/or somehow sanitize and censor the rodeo.  To what end?
>>
>> I really do think that I have gained a clarified background of the issues 
>> from my association with this
>> list and my interactions with the organization.
>>
>> Please share with us this alternative viewpoint of new light on the issues,
>> since your "no" answer implies that you have information or you know of 
>> information unshared.
>>
>> The list-serve is patient.  It will transmit your info just as it does that
>> of Laurie, Carl, David J, Mort, Stuart, Karen, Joy,  ewj, John W, Dave
>> Harley, Ricky B, Jenifer, et al.  or what ever subset of that 10-11-12
>> frequent contributors that comprises the "3-4 people" who are "hogging" the
>> stage.  It will broadcast to all, including some who are in "deep lurk",
>> reading but seldom responding.
>>
>> The more threads the merrier.  Type away.
> 
> Oh, come on, Wayne.  Censor, schmensor.
> 
> If I started posted to this list about the life cycles of Cecropia moths,
> or of massive stars, or striking up conversations about what's on my grocery
> list for this week, or yelling at my peers for criticizing my preference
> for Michael Jackson over Britney Spears, I hope you'd consider it tiresome,
> at best, and anyway a poor fit for the topics this list was set up to cover.
> 
> More to the point -- if you had joined this list to *learn about
> and work for peace* -- wading through such stuff would be
> *a waste of your time*.
> 
> You may be immortal, but I'm definitely not.  I have only so much time
> left to waste.  And I have a job (as you do, but many on this list don't),
> and other interests and causes to work for.   I want time spent
> participating in AWARE to mean something.
> 
> There are 164 people on this mailing list.  Please let's be considerate
> about choosing what we put in the in-boxes of the other 163.
> 
>     Stuart
> 
> 
>> On 9/3/2009 8:35 PM, jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
>>> You say that you are spending hours and hours talking about the war.  Do 
>>> you feel that you have made any progress in gaining a clarified background 
>>> of the issues and/or a sense of the future?  Has the discussion brought 
>>> anyone else's opinions to the table to shed new light on the issues.  I 
>>> think the answer is "no".  This list serve which holds so much potential 
>>> has now been reduced to a stage for 3-4 people and there are more than a 
>>> few people who have a problem with that arrangement.
>>>
>>> How do we provide an arena for both of us?  I like the idea of the unused 
>>> email address being brought out of retirement.
>>>
>>> Joy George