>In view of concerns expressed to me privately I want to clarify
>another point. I obviously cannot speak for everyone who is
>concerned about the mail bomber but I can say that I have
>absolutely no intention of trying to drive Steve off the group with
>this. I think this would be very deleterious to this group. My
>hope was that if there is some type of consensus, especially
>among lurkers or others who Steve would not consider an
>adversary, then perhaps Steve would change his practice voluntarily.
>If he chooses not to, that's fine. He can continue on his merry
>way.
I want it clearly understood that I too do not want Stephen driven off. I
have told him privately that I wish he would stay up with the conversation.
As the target of many of his very long posts which are dumped all at once, I
find that tactic rude and not conducive to civil conversation. It is like
having a friend at a dinner, talk your head off and then wonder why you
won't respond or want to have dinner with him again. I will not respond to
dumps like Stephen has been engaging in over the past few months publically.
That is MY right and choice. I simply do not consider it fair tactics on his
part nor do I consider it polite. As a brother in Christ I would ask
Stephen to stay and participate in a reasonable fashion.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm