> Now, game mechanics can be discussed in this list, sure, but I never said
> nor did I imply that it should be that exclusively........ Like I *also*
> said
> in my earlier post, in the beginning it wasn't so bad, it was still in the
> range of what the list should be for because there was the declaration of
> war
> and then the valid points of why this was done or why that was done or why
> this particular situation is the way it is, etc. etc. etc. That is valid,
> because it keeps to the game and is somewhat civilized........ But when
> people
> start arguing with each other, then that should be kept between them
I'm sorry, but I have to butt in here. I'm laughing so hard I just had to
jump in....
How come every Newgroup I subscibe to, every mail list I read, and every chat
room I enter (no often!) somebody has to issue the "I'm civilized and I don't
like flaming and I don't think you should be flaming and that's not what this
group/ng/dist list is for and I know what it's for and you don't so allow me
to tell you what this list is for" post?
My theory: if a Newsgroup has flaming, then flaming IS a part of the
newsgroup. If a mail list has flaming, then flaming IS part of the newsgroup.
What this list "should be" is determined by what "it is". If the list
contains mostly game mechanics, then it's a game mechanics list. If this week
it contains alot of flames, then guess what? It's now a flaming list.
I always get a chuckle out of one or two participants in a list/NG telling the
other members of the list/NG what the list is for. The reason for the list is
whatever the participants of the list deem it to be.
Now, if we see a post from Majordomo, or Rich telling us what the list is for,
then I'll listen :-)
Eric Nelson