Paul's response

I think Paul's response to ScottyTee's question was reasonable and fair:
it's understandable that the list maintainer would want to keep the list
anchored to its raison d'etre, and as long as that purpose is encouraged
(through reminders from Paul and other action as he deems appropriate) as
objectively as is reasonably possible for Paul in the circumstances, no one
can cavil with this approach. Indeed as ScottyTee said we must be
appreciative that Paul and igtc continue to maintain this Who forum for us.
(I can also see a case being made for a more anarchic approach to the list,
the rationale for which has been well-articulated in the past by a number of
list members including WF and Bernd but the list maintainer has to decide
how the list will be run and as I've said I find Paul's approach reasonable
too.). But I think it's also fair to point out that just as the Who
themselves didn't (indeed couldn't) exist in isolation, nor can a discussion
of the Who exist in isolation. One thing leads to another, and something
which is, say, "crap" in the eyes of some may be very connected to the Who
in the eyes of another... Plus, this list reflects a broad range of age
groups, nationalities, educational level, etc. I can only hope that Paul
will consider these additional factors when deciding whether a given
discussion has gone too far, and wish him well for undertaking a task, often
thankless, for which we all are truly grateful....Gary M.