RM> RM>> Define philosophy.  As it is you can ban anyone anytime as you
RM> RM>> please and some how interpret it as a violation of rule 0.  Paper
RM> RM>> tiger, that all. Remindes me of the UN.
RM> R> The love of wisdom.
RM>Define wisdom.
I would think that for a Moderator of Philosophy (PhM?) the real
question is, what boundaries must be placed upon the love of wisdom?
I'll leave aside the question of whether the Rev is moderating with
a light touch or no touch at all, but for the most part we seem
reasonably sane around here.
RM> R> Yes, indeed I could use my feed cut power in an arbitrary manner. I
RM> R> don't see what your point is, though.
RM>My point is that your "rule 0" does nothing without any indication of
RM>exactly how you define "philosophy"... except maybe to give you QUITE a
RM>bit of "fudge room" should you decide to remove someone (though, I do
RM>doubt you WOULD do anything like that).
If anything, I think the Rev is underusing his authority.  I could
do with fewer of the ad hominems and ad pongidems.
 * SLMR 2.1a * .   If ignorance isn't bliss, I don't know what is.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------