Re: Irrelevant postings

From: Jay Travis (dagobert@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sat Feb 25 2006 - 13:17:15 PST


> [Original Message]
> From: Ron <rojoha@adelphia.net>
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Date: 2/25/2006 10:11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Irrelevant postings
>
> Sorry Jay, but....
>
> Well, for those that have NEVER looked, or whose memory is a bit shaky
> about the last time they looked, like mine, GO HERE:
>
>
> http://mil-veh.org/
>
> And I quote:
>
> "The military vehicles mailing list is a forum for those who privately
own
> or are interested in military vehicles from any country and of any type,
> from bicycles to tanks.
>
> Discussion can cover repair of vehicles, buying and selling vehicles and
> spare parts, weapons, paint, markings, technical documentation, and
> notification of clubs, parades, and conventions for military vehicle
owners.
> Most any discussion concerning issues of interest to military vehicle
> collectors is appropriate, though military matters beyond historical
> background would likely belong on sci.military. "

OK, Ronzo, that's fair, but...

IF I am going to be judged by the above quote in my statement about the
scope of the list, then I'd like to point out the first part of the last
line that You quoted: "Most any discussion concerning issues of interest to
military vehicle collectors is appropriate, though military matters beyond
historical background would likely belong on sci. military." Now, taken in
the literal statement, does it not say "most ANY discussion concerning
ISSUES OF INTEREST to military vehicle collectors IS appropriate", and by
whose standards "issues of interest" are defined is really at the core of
this whole debate, isn't it?

Yours, mine, Everette's, and every other person who has at some point in
the past contributed an opinion or a helpful hand on this list may very
well have an "issue of interest" to some other members but not necessarily
to everyone else. If I don't live in Kansas or own a Ferret, I may still
well be interested about the problems with getting one registered there,
regardless of my reason why. Now, I do admit and agree that SOME of the
posts do get off topic and jump "beyond historical background", although
that part of the quote means that Everette's historical "on this day in
military history" posts ARE within the scope of this list. But a lot of
them are related, sometimes in a less direct way, but are still "issues of
interest" for some on the list. And even those matters, as the above quote
says, "would LIKELY belong on sci.military" but not automatically, or
without the occassional exception.

I think a lot of thought went into the above wording, and it deserves to be
taken in its whole cloth, not interpreted. God knows we have more than
enough revisionism in the rest of society today to put up with. What I
don't understand, Ronzo, is why you're arguing with me, when at the end, we
both seem to be saying "Live and let live" to the posting police. Maybe I
misunderstood your post? Either way, I've got no problem with you and
don't really care to have any; but if I'm to be taken to task for my
position relative to the list's rule, then I'm going to speak in my own
defense, same as you or anyone else would.

Jay



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:41:13 PDT