[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Politics on the list
>From: Hanicram45@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Politics on the list
>
>Hello Paul, <snip> I would appreciate it if you would ask once
>again that the subject matter pertain to the Who and that subscribers keep
>their politics to themselves, including their signatures. Regards, Ceenie.
I agree with you Ceenie, except for the following:
Signatures don't cause political rants. The uncontrollable need of some to
disagree with, agree with, argue against, or comment on said signatures
does.
*That's* the point I've been trying to make, and might I say has been proven
nicely by those "some".
I personally think signatures are fine and should be left alone as a passive
way of expressing a person's current interest.
I *really* hope Paul won't be forced to censor peoples sigs due to the
inability of some to ignore sigs they have issues with.
My 2 cents.
>From: Hanicram45@aol.com
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V9 #114
>
>I read somewhere that Pete said he was more a hawk than a dove and leaned
>toward the conservative persuasion, which I understand.
Way to practice what you preach. Oh, and you're wrong.
>I thought Paul asked that the political
>discussions be kept off the list and try to keep the subject matter focused
>on the Who and their activities, music, etc. Regards, Ceenie.
You're confusing me.
>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>
>Subject: Re: Politics on the list
>
>God damn it! Ceenie says "Shut up!"
>
>So.....shut up!!
Easy big guy. You'll give yourself an ulcer.
To much fun to be missed this summer if you're sick.
:-)
Stay in tune,
Kevin in VT