[LMB] Listbiz - US Politics - was Re: OT: Effects of "Global Warming"
robtjwms at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 26 22:50:24 BST 2011
--- On Thu, 9/15/11, Greg Hennessy <greg.hennessy at cox.net> wrote (quoting JenL):
> > I took it to be closer to "I can't continue this
> discussion because it goes
> > into [banned subject], but the short version is [3
> sentences of discussion
> > of the topic the person *just said* is banned]."
> I would agree that what you suggest is not a welcome thing,
> but I also
> don't think I did that.
In one thread of the global warming discussion, you did exactly that, and in another thread of it, you did something even more egregious. The more egregious incident is the one I quoted in my first "Listbiz - US Politics" post. Mitch Miller wrote a post making no mention of US politics, and you replied to his comment about Chinese contributions to global warming with a statement about US politics while mentioning that you were moving directly into US politics, "I can point out the current leadership in the White House thinks it is a problem, while the current leadership in the House does not, but that gets smack into forbidden USA politics."
For those who want to see the original posts, the following links are to the archive:
Mitch's post (note the lack of any comment relating to US politics):
The second incident, a few hours later, was almost exactly what JenL described, which you agreed was not a welcome thing. Jeff Schultz responded to your US politics comment with a non-political comment quoting a statement by Glenn Reynolds, and mentioned how it's often linked with commentary about Al Gore's 8 houses. You replied, defending Al Gore. Jeff responded to your post, continuing to talk about Al Gore. You responded to his comments by saying, "complaining about Al Gore IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to list policies." Then in the next paragraph, you continued to defend Al Gore's environmental record.
If complaining about Al Gore *were* a violation of list policies (which it isn't - he's a former US politician who's now an environmental activist - complaining about his actions as VP would run astray of the US politics ban, but complaining about his current activity does not), defending him is as well. But you made a post defending him, then in your second post cried 'US Politics' and then continued the argument.
Again, for those who want to look at the original posts in the archive:
Jeff's first post:
Greg's first reply:
Jeff's second post:
Greg's second reply:
More information about the Lois-Bujold