Re: POLITICS where do they stand?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> > I realize that this group officially endorses Ron , but

> shouldn’t this

> > post have a ‘POLITICS’ tag?

" This group " certainly does not. Nor will it endorse whatever

candidate I decide to support either.

Certainly the post should have had a politics tag, but as Suze

explained, it wasn't supposed to be sent to the list, so it's an

understandable error.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

>>> I realize that this group officially endorses Ron , but

>> shouldn’t this

>>> post have a ‘POLITICS’ tag?

>

> " This group " certainly does not. Nor will it endorse whatever

> candidate I decide to support either.

Do I have to put a smiley on every sarcastic comment I make? Obviously, I'm

referring to the fact that the moderator posts 100+ 'ron paul for president'

emails a day, micromanaging every argument down to its subatomic butt hair,

and now someone posts ( accidentally) about circumventing WAPF rules about

not endorsing candidates...

But I realize that none of this is 'official'.

>

> Certainly the post should have had a politics tag, but as Suze

> explained, it wasn't supposed to be sent to the list, so it's an

> understandable error.

Right - I sometimes make the mistake of actually living my life in

chronological order. Sorry about that.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

I got that you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to make it

abundantly clear for everyone else that there is no list endorsement.

Also, I think you put too much weight on Chris's moderator status as

relates to his personal opinions. The fact that he's a moderator

doesn't require him to keep his opinions quiet; it just requires that

he be fair and impartial in his moderation. Would you similarly

suggest that I should refrain from stating my political positions

because I'm the list-owner?

-

> Do I have to put a smiley on every sarcastic comment I make?

> Obviously, I'm

> referring to the fact that the moderator posts 100+ 'ron paul for

> president'

> emails a day, micromanaging every argument down to its subatomic

> butt hair,

> and now someone posts ( accidentally) about circumventing WAPF rules

> about

> not endorsing candidates...

[Guest guest]

from a scientific perspective, here's one quick comparison:

http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/01/where-do-presidential-candidates-stand.h\

tml

-jennifer

[Guest guest]

-

> from a scientific perspective, here's one quick comparison:

>

http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/01/where-do-presidential-candidates-stand.h\

tml

Too bad it doesn't cover Ron 's position, since there seems to be

so much enthusiasm for his candidacy here on the list, but I think

it's safe to guess that he's opposed to federal funding of research

based on his general propertarian philosophy.

-

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> > Gene-

>> >

>> > I got that you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to make it

>> > abundantly clear for everyone else that there is no list endorsement.

>

> ok, but then to save me the trauma of thinking I¹m misunderstood, perhaps you

> could make that qualification in your post?

>

>> > Also, I think you put too much weight on Chris's moderator status as

>> > relates to his personal opinions. The fact that he's a moderator

>> > doesn't require him to keep his opinions quiet; it just requires that

>> > he be fair and impartial in his moderation. Would you similarly

>> > suggest that I should refrain from stating my political positions

>> > because I'm the list-owner?

>

> I think that I¹ve stated why I object, and what the difference is. You post

> your political opinions in context, and you don¹t repeatedly endorse a single

> candidate, turning over any rock, virtual or totally imaginary, to find some

> excuse to deify this candidate. I don¹t think I¹ve ever been on any list

> (except for the mercola forum which is absolutely shameful) which, not be

> policy, but by actual effect, endorses one candidate.

>> >

>> > -

>> >

>>> >> Do I have to put a smiley on every sarcastic comment I make?

>>> >> Obviously, I'm

>>> >> referring to the fact that the moderator posts 100+ 'ron paul for

>>> >> president'

>>> >> emails a day, micromanaging every argument down to its subatomic

>>> >> butt hair,

>>> >> and now someone posts ( accidentally) about circumventing WAPF rules

>>> >> about

>>> >> not endorsing candidates...

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

ok, this one might have better info as it includes links to all (or

most) candidates' positions:

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/uncommon-ground/archives/2008/01/science-and-the.htm\

l

On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Idol wrote:

> -

>

>> from a scientific perspective, here's one quick comparison:

>>

http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/01/where-do-presidential-candidates-stand.h\

tml

>

> Too bad it doesn't cover Ron 's position, since there seems to be

> so much enthusiasm for his candidacy here on the list, but I think

> it's safe to guess that he's opposed to federal funding of research

> based on his general propertarian philosophy.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

> and now someone posts ( accidentally) about circumventing WAPF rules

about

> not endorsing candidates...

I knew as soon as I realized I'd accidentally posted it to the list that

good ol' Gene would have some comment.

I'm not suggesting anyone circumvent WAPF rules. I proposed a chart showing

where the different candidates stand on WAPF issues which is not against any

WAPF rule.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> > ok, but then to save me the trauma of thinking I’m misunderstood,

> perhaps you

> > could make that qualification in your post?

OK, fair enough.

> > I think that I’ve stated why I object, and what the difference is.

> You post

> > your political opinions in context, and you don’t repeatedly

> endorse a single

> > candidate, turning over any rock, virtual or totally imaginary, to

> find some

> > excuse to deify this candidate. I don’t think I’ve ever been on

> any list

> > (except for the mercola forum which is absolutely shameful) which,

> not be

> > policy, but by actual effect, endorses one candidate.

Part of the distinction between Chris's posting and mine, though, is

that I'm not passionately committed to any candidate. If I were, I'd

probably devote a lot more energy to trying to persuade other people

to vote for him or her, but to me they're all very flawed and they all

have serious problems, though I do think that is by far the

best of the mainstream candidates and in fact is one of the best

mainstream candidates to come down the pike in a long time.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/11/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Part of the distinction between Chris's posting and mine, though, is

> that I'm not passionately committed to any candidate. If I were, I'd

> probably devote a lot more energy to trying to persuade other people

> to vote for him or her, but to me they're all very flawed and they all

> have serious problems, though I do think that is by far the

> best of the mainstream candidates and in fact is one of the best

> mainstream candidates to come down the pike in a long time.

Well, first of all the reason I post about Ron so much is because

his candidacy is so RELEVANT to this list. I was pretty passionately

active in supporting Nader in 2000 -- in fact, if you look closely

enough, I and my girlfriend at the time are featured in the Boston

debate protest clips in the movie " An Unreasonable Man -- Ralph Nader "

-- but had I been on this list at the time, I probably wouldn't be

writing much about it. But Ron happens to have explicit stances

on NAIS, raw milk, access to alternative medicine, opposition to FDA

persecution of alternative health community, and so on. That is, on

all of the political issues that have the most direct relevancy to the

topics discussed on this list.

Secondly, as I recall it, I was posting rather infrequent updates

about Ron 's campaign until Gene posted the " POLITICS: RON PAUL IS

NOT YOUR SAVIOUR " thread, which opened up a pandora's box of

discussion by introducing a whole host of less relevant political

issues as well as some erroneous information and mischaracetrizations

that needed to be disputed.

I take full responsibility for my own posts, but I am not the only

*cause* of the amount of discussion this topic has received here.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Hilarious! So, my posting of that article is the cause of all of the

> unsolicited crap that you¹ve been posting about Ron ?

>

>

>> >

>> > On 1/11/08, Idol <Idol@... <mailto:Idol%40nyc.rr.com> >

>> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> Part of the distinction between Chris's posting and mine, though, is

>>> >> that I'm not passionately committed to any candidate. If I were, I'd

>>> >> probably devote a lot more energy to trying to persuade other people

>>> >> to vote for him or her, but to me they're all very flawed and they all

>>> >> have serious problems, though I do think that is by far the

>>> >> best of the mainstream candidates and in fact is one of the best

>>> >> mainstream candidates to come down the pike in a long time.

>> >

>> > Well, first of all the reason I post about Ron so much is because

>> > his candidacy is so RELEVANT to this list. I was pretty passionately

>> > active in supporting Nader in 2000 -- in fact, if you look closely

>> > enough, I and my girlfriend at the time are featured in the Boston

>> > debate protest clips in the movie " An Unreasonable Man -- Ralph Nader "

>> > -- but had I been on this list at the time, I probably wouldn't be

>> > writing much about it. But Ron happens to have explicit stances

>> > on NAIS, raw milk, access to alternative medicine, opposition to FDA

>> > persecution of alternative health community, and so on. That is, on

>> > all of the political issues that have the most direct relevancy to the

>> > topics discussed on this list.

>> >

>> > Secondly, as I recall it, I was posting rather infrequent updates

>> > about Ron 's campaign until Gene posted the " POLITICS: RON PAUL IS

>> > NOT YOUR SAVIOUR " thread, which opened up a pandora's box of

>> > discussion by introducing a whole host of less relevant political

>> > issues as well as some erroneous information and mischaracetrizations

>> > that needed to be disputed.

>> >

>> > I take full responsibility for my own posts, but I am not the only

>> > *cause* of the amount of discussion this topic has received here.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >