At 09:17 AM 01/10/97 +0800, Nelson Wong wrote: [SNIP] >> You can always give a reference to a website and document(URL), >> but you may not send full-text copies of such documents, without >> prior permission. >> ########################################################################## > >So what else is new? I have seen this notice several times before. You & the >media can keep your sanitized principles, in your ivory towers, and can still >be morally wrong! As it was said to Scarlett O'Hara at the end of 'Gone with >the Wind' - Frankly Ma'am I don't give a damn! You have before you a very >powerful tool as the Forest List-owner. You can keep your white-washed >priciples, or you can help change the world (apologies to Steve Job & John >Scully). The choice is yours! To the best of my knowledge, the FOREST list is maintained by the listowner with a finite amount of computing resources, and is set up for a certain volume of traffic. If everyone who decides that the rules don't apply to them decides to ignore the rules by including documents, instead of simply giving a URL, are we assured that the list will continue to operate? Most of us can very easily bring up a web browser to check out any web address (I've been following the "fires" stories with interest), so there is no need to clutter up the listserver's system with full-text copies of documents. Yes, these fires are a disaster, but I want the FOREST list to be around in the future to inform me of other important issues. Society needs to agree on certain rules to function properly, and I think that the listowner's rules are entirely reasonable. If Nelson Wong and those who have written in support of his statements think that the rules are unreasonable (sanitized, white-washed principles), are they willing to engage in constructive dialogue about how the system can be changed, or will it be anarchy (frankly Ma'am I don't give a damn)? Phil Loseth
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0