From time to time this issue arises. It is a valid issue that reflects a
variety of expectations about the purpose of the listserv. It bothers people
to have things posted on the listserv that do not conform to their view of
the purpose. Yet clearly no view of purpose is universally shared.
Also from time to time one or more of us suggests creating two different
listservs -- one for topics that are spot on about business law, and another
for the more freewheeling, even carping. I would subscribe to both and know
what I was getting into with the latter. The idea has not grown legs or
taken wings, and I am not sure why, but I keep thinking it has merit.
Ginny
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sally Gunz
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Distortions and lies about health care reform
Dear Folks:
I am an old fart. As a Canadian I have also been holding off making a
comment on today's exchanges -- as in not really my business.
However, I couldn't help laying bets as to when we would reach a point
that the suggestion would be made to need to change protocols. This is
not a reflection on your email at all David. But rather that I am
really, really old and have been through this debate many times. Yes,
probably people should be warned. But to be honest, the header is pretty
descriptive.
Note to all: when you get a header that talks about lies and distortions
about anything, it is likely political and you may not want to read it.
In which case, hit delete.
Please also note: in no way is this intended to be sarcastic. It is just
a feeble attempt to remind everyone that headers are descriptive and if
you don't want to participate, exercise your rights and don't.
I think that is the protocol????
Sally
David Canarie wrote:
> Thank you for you post, Tom, which I'm sure expressed the thoughts of many
readers of this list. I have to say that reading the various posts with
name calling and attacks darkened my day.
>
> What's happened to respectful discourse? Instead, it seems that debaters
not only have to utterly destroy their opponent's arguments, they want to
show that their opponent ought to be ashamed of themselves for even
espousing those thoughts in the first place.
>
> I'd really appreciate it if these political discussions could be
accompanied by the words "Political Discussion" in the subject line (as I
though was supposed to be the practice) so I can simply delete them unread.
I like political discussions...but that's not why I subscribed to this site.
>
> ____________________________
> J. David Canarie, Jr, Esq.
> Instructor, Business Law
> Saint Joseph's College of Maine
> 278 White's Bridge Road
> Standish, ME 04084-5263
>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.sjcme.edu<http://www.sjcme.edu/>
> ____________________________
> J. David Canarie, Jr, Esq.
> Instructor, Business Law
> Saint Joseph's College of Maine
> 278 White's Bridge Road
> Standish, ME 04084-5263
>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.sjcme.edu<http://www.sjcme.edu/>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Cavenagh
[[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Distortions and lies about health care reform
>
> Colleagues:
>
> I am not one who thinks our list would be improved by rules related to
postings. I am pleased with a wide-ranging discussion, including one with
political themes, and can hit 'delete' when necessary. I think many of us
who don't post regularly, but read often, feel similarly. However, this
particular post does prompt me to make a suggestion: if the post you plan
on submitting is indistinguishable from the anti-intellectual shouting that
dominates our political discourse, exercise some self-censorship.
Reasonable people can disagree about the merits and demerits of the new
health care law. But, I don't think any of us would accept the wild
over-generalizations ("Republicans only care ...") and ad hominem ("idiotic
chickens ...") this post contains from our freshmen - nor should we from one
another.
>
> Tom
>
> Thomas D. Cavenagh, JD
> Schneller Sisters Professor of Leadership, Ethics & Values
> Professor of Law & Conflict Resolution
> North Central College
> 30 North Brainard Street
> Naperville, Illinois 60540
> 630-637-5157
> 630-637-5224 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>>>> On 10/24/2010 at 9:55 PM, in message
<1B354F458341A94A8CDCBA8D7505300121D97A827A@mail>, "Storch, Robert"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
> Republicans only care about people right before they're born and right
before they die. In between-----you're on your own.
>
> EVERY major piece of legislation that has helped non-wealthy people in the
past 100 years have come from Democrats, whether it be social security,
minimum wage, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, fair
housing, voting rights, civil rights, family leave, the NLRA that allows
workers to unionize, etc.
>
> For the life of me I will never understand why there are so many idiotic
chickens who will go and vote for Colonel Sanders.
> ________________________________________
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw
[[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Distortions and lies about health care reform
>
> Health Care and the
Campaign<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?th&emc=th>
> Republicans and special interests are spreading so many distortions and
lies about health care reform that it is little wonder if voters are anxious
and confused.
>
> This is the kind of thing that may result in a Republican Congress . . .
how soon they forget.
>
|
