> At 12:58 AM 3/19/02 -0600, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>> i (which it seems we don't and he doesn't) AND we don't want to efface
>> email addresses (and i don't--off-list contact is tricky but
>> important), THEN we ought to allow aliases. my two cents.
>
> see, this is the reason why the vote was stupid.
>
> no one was talking about this. everyone posting to this list would see
> my email address and yours.
>
> but thanks to you, max, and carrol for proving my point about what an
> excellent example of bourgeois democracy in action. you and max don't
> know what the proposal was. call it prop 209-LOB.
>
>
i didn't vote. so what point did i prove for you, exactly? that i misread, in my haste, a whole slew of weekend posts? so sorry. my apologies for my (apparently) boozhwah democratic stupidity. i hope you can find it your true-blue anti-boozh heart to forgive me.
my main point was simply that we ought to keep the aliases. did you have a problem with that?
the other point i had was that budge has a mistaken understanding of the privacy he may or may not enjoy on this list with or without archives. did you have a problem with that?
let me rephrase (or rather reduce) my argument on the first point: if we don't want a restricted list, and we don't want to efface email addresses, then we ought to allow aliases.
that was one argument, the other is that the listowner trying to rid the list of aliases would be abused by those anti-boozh-dem radicals into shutting down the list or allowing aliases, anyway, so what's the point?
you'll notice that this was tangential to the poll and really addressed more to max's suggestion, anyway, but you would have had to actually pay attention to see that.
j