g. nelson (
Sun, 24 May 1998 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 24 May 1998, Liberty wrote:

> Tom,
> At 11:19 AM 24/05/1998 -0700, Tom Boland wrote:
> <snip>
> >Liberty, thanks for your very useful feedback.  You keep me thinking.
> >
> >While some information is worth forwarding, too many articles from
> >elsewhere can thwart HPN members' person-to-person dialog on solutions.
> >But then, who is to say what is "too much" forwarding?  I'd rather that be
> >the autonomous decision of each member, not a limit enforced by me.  What
> >we may not like find interesting, we can always delete.
> Then, perhaps I will start forwarding articles from some of the conservative
> and religious lists I am on, and only then you will hear lots of complaining
> from the so-called tolerant "liberal" community.

How amusing.

> <snip>
> >For the sake of free exchange of ideas, I'm wary of setting limits on
> >content.  I especially want no limits on political and policy debate.  Why?
> >I think we need to consider and test new and unpopular ideas.  If we are to
> >ever reduce or end poverty and homelessness, we need to think outside
> >standard policy frames.
> True.  I have no qualms about freedom and exchange in discussion of ideas,
> but I am finding myself deleting 19 out of 20 posts I get from HPN, as
> the majority of them seem to be forwarded posts from anarchist lists,
> and it should not be assumed that just because these posts are sent to
> the list, that they are any way representative of, or accepted by the 
> people on this list, anymore than the input I might forward from some of 
> the market-oriented conservative and libertarian lists I am also on, many
> of which also have rich discussions about social policy and express quite
> a different opinion about people who are living in poverty ...


First,It comes as no suprise that you fail to read 95% of the posts here
on HPN.
Your 'solutions' are so consistently out of touch with the realities we
poor folks deal with every day I have often wondered if you actually read
the numerous posts to the list which totally belie your basic stance.
Second, I may be wrong (and if I am, I hope that list members other than
yourself will correct me) but I believe you are not someone who can
accurately judge what is representative of or accepted by the other people
on this list. You are hardly the leader here and, seeing as you only read
5% of the posts are barely a participant.
 I for one have been very appreciative of the many posts
which document human rights abuses, the horrific results of welfare
deformation, the pervasive NIMBY reaction and the news from Graeme and
Bonnie. They have been most useful in correcting the right-wing spin so
pervasive in the media these days.
Third, you are more than welcome to foward posts from other lists though,
of course, we here must reserve the right to respond to the person who
wrote the post and also comment on the content here on the list. If you 
do this it is most important to be honest and include the list name and
email address of the sender. Don't forget now.
I have a rapidly growing file of opinion on the attitudes and beliefs of
the conservative and religious conservative community's attitudes towards
the poor. Indeed, several of your posts are in this file. I always
appreciate the opportunity to add to this fascinating bit of cultural
commentary and history.

> I would just ask that a limit be placed on forwarding, but no limit on
> topics of person-to-person discussion, with the exception to a rule against
> flaming and personal attacks any list member.

1. I am opposed to limits placed on forwarding. This is blatent censorship
and totally unacceptable.
2. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior on this list before
suggesting a 'rule' against flaming and personal attacks. I would be more
than happy to provide you with countless examples if you are at all
puzzled by my meaning. 
Perhaps we, as a list, could then come to an agreement about what does and
does not constitute flaming and personal attacks and you will be able to
understand why your actions on this list generally discourage
person-to-person discussion rather than encourage it.
> I try, Tom ... but it seems that my pro-capitalist views are seen as 
> something related to government intervention.  In fact, I've always called
> for less government intervention, and have been the only poster who has
> consistently taken this position ... 

It seems fairly clear that, at least in this country, government serves
the needs and desires of corporate business interests pretty much
exclusively. You miss the point. 

Gwen Nelson

    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises
                            in moral philosophy;
         that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
                   selfishness." (John Kenneth Galbraith)