[extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend

[Joseph Bloch]

I take issue with my post being dismissed as "leakage".

To my mind, it was a legitimate response to a legitimate criticism of 
cryonics. Sorry, Keith, if you think that such criticism is unwarranted 
and deserving of summary censorship.

I chose to respond, and I don't think doing so was in any way 
contributing to any degredation of the list's signal-to-noise ratio. 
Indeed, I might say your response, and this one I'm replying to now, 
might fit into that category.

Last I'm saying on the subject.

Joseph

Keith Henson wrote:

>At 09:06 AM 5/18/2006 -0500, Natasha wrote:
>  
>
>>At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta
>>>look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it.
>>>      
>>>
>>This message and its subject line ought to have sent to moderators, not 
>>expressed on this list.  It simply does not set a tone that we want to support.
>>
>>Thanks Keith,
>>Natasha
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry you took what I said as objectionable.  I took the original post as 
>noise injection.  It takes a relatively small amount of noise to wreck a 
>list if list members (or moderators) don't recognize it for what it is.  I 
>have been expressing this opinion for decades in many places and in my 
>opinion I fall for provocation more often than I should.
>
>Perhaps there is moderation by Eugene and J. Andrew going on the background 
>and this is just leakage.
>
>May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on the 
>bottom of each post?  Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go 
>back and find who the current ones are.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Keith
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>