HomeRoast Digest


Topic: that S word (13 msgs / 391 lines)
1) From: gin
I thought it was agreed that we "could" choose to ignore a PP and take it up
off list with the individual that said something we/you/us/them did not
like.
what happened to a bit of free ------, that "S" word.
ginny

2) From: Foster
<Snip>
Perhaps what was getting under Mike's saddle was the fact that his 
political posts, which were from the conservative/right side of the 
spectrum, were being flamed, but not those which were from he 
opposite, more "liberal" perspective. I think everyone hates a double 
standard, no matter who applies it.
It sounds like our host Tom doesn't necessarily object to political 
posts. However, if partisan politics were to become a regular part of 
this group there might be a danger that some of the participants in 
the list, from whom I learn much about coffee,  could be driven away. 
That would be a loss I don't think is worth risking, especially since 
there are many other forums where political views can be expressed. 
Even if a person's political opinions are rubbish, it doesn't mean 
that they don't know something about coffee.
If we're voting on this again (winking smiley face here), I vote to 
limit political opinions (through self-restraint, which is different 
from censorship).
R. Foster

3) From: John Blumel
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:15:48 -0500, Foster wrote:
<Snip>
This analysis is, in my opinion, incorrect. 
First, Mike, on the occasion that I recall, posted a blatant, right
wing propaganda piece that insulted Bill Clinton and The US Marines and
the 'story' Mike posted was a complete fiction being passed off as
literal truth. (Although, it should be noted that Mike seemed not to
realize that he had been duped as well.) Furthermore, Mike's posting
had absolutely no content related to coffee but was posted even though
he knew and acknowledged that he knew it was completely off topic and
inappropriate.
Fletcher's 'post', on the other hand, was a sig line that quoted and
referenced, by URL, a Washington Post article that pointed out certain
contradictions between recent statements made by George Bush, Jr. and
the actual historical timeline preceding the invasion of Iraq. The post
itself was on topic nor did he make a point of directing anyone to read
the sig line.
Others on this list have had 'political' sig lines from time to time.
For example Steve Dover has sometimes posted with a sig line that
expresses a sentiment that represents a certain interpretation of the
Second Amendment to the US Constitution that is more commonly adhered
to by those on the right than on the left and with which I personally
disagree. However, to the best of my knowledge, he has not been flamed
or attacked by anyone for including this sig line -- no doubt because
it was a sig line and his posts were on topic. 
Second, and to the best of my recollection, Mike's patriotism was not
attacked in response to his post. The responses that I recall were all
of the nature of "keep this right wing BS off the list." Mike did
however attack Fletcher's patriotism and even seemed to intimidate
Fletcher into feeling that he needed to defend his patriotism -- "Not
meant to be unpatriotic at all."
There is, therefore, no double standard being applied by the list
members based on the political content of emails. There is a single
standard that insists that postings not be completely off topic, that
pure political propaganda is so far off topic that it has no place on
the list and that sig lines are considered an area of personal
expression where one may express any view one wishes, as long as the
sig line doesn't completely overshadow the message content. (Although,
it should be noted that Tom has requested that sig lines be kept
non-political on list)
John Blumel

4) From: gin
Foster said:>>If we're voting on this again (winking smiley face here), I
vote to
limit political opinions (through self-restraint, which is different
from censorship).<<
I could not agree more.
ginny

5) From: John Abbott
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
  
  
I'M OUT OF HERE!
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 12:44, John Blumel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:15:48 -0500, Foster wrote:
>Perhaps what was getting under Mike's saddle was the fact that his 
>political posts, which were from the conservative/right side of the 
>spectrum, were being flamed, but not those which were from he 
>opposite, more "liberal" perspective. I think everyone hates a double 
>standard, no matter who applies it.
This analysis is, in my opinion, incorrect. 
First, Mike, on the occasion that I recall, posted a blatant, right
wing propaganda piece that insulted Bill Clinton and The US Marines and
the 'story' Mike posted was a complete fiction being passed off as
literal truth. (Although, it should be noted that Mike seemed not to
realize that he had been duped as well.) Furthermore, Mike's posting
had absolutely no content related to coffee but was posted even though
he knew and acknowledged that he knew it was completely off topic and
inappropriate.
Fletcher's 'post', on the other hand, was a sig line that quoted and
referenced, by URL, a Washington Post article that pointed out certain
contradictions between recent statements made by George Bush, Jr. and
the actual historical timeline preceding the invasion of Iraq. The post
itself was on topic nor did he make a point of directing anyone to read
the sig line.
Others on this list have had 'political' sig lines from time to time.
For example Steve Dover has sometimes posted with a sig line that
expresses a sentiment that represents a certain interpretation of the
Second Amendment to the US Constitution that is more commonly adhered
to by those on the right than on the left and with which I personally
disagree. However, to the best of my knowledge, he has not been flamed
or attacked by anyone for including this sig line -- no doubt because
it was a sig line and his posts were on topic. 
Second, and to the best of my recollection, Mike's patriotism was not
attacked in response to his post. The responses that I recall were all
of the nature of "keep this right wing BS off the list." Mike did
however attack Fletcher's patriotism and even seemed to intimidate
Fletcher into feeling that he needed to defend his patriotism -- "Not
meant to be unpatriotic at all."
There is, therefore, no double standard being applied by the list
members based on the political content of emails. There is a single
standard that insists that postings not be completely off topic, that
pure political propaganda is so far off topic that it has no place on
the list and that sig lines are considered an area of personal
expression where one may express any view one wishes, as long as the
sig line doesn't completely overshadow the message content. (Although,
it should be noted that Tom has requested that sig lines be kept
non-political on list)
John Blumel
homeroast mailing list
">http://www.sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html">http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroastTo change your personal list settings, see http://www.sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html

6) From: sho2go
John,  do you think we could can this whole topic?  Your post is just as
"looney left" as Mike's prev. post was "blatant right wing..."  Let's leave
it there.  I think if I put a nasty sig about the Clintons it would be
immediately challenged, which is as it should be.  Its just another sneaky
way to put forth a particular agenda.  Now, back to my Budadiri......
Mike

7) From: John Blumel
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:42:09 -0700, sho2go wrote:
<Snip>
I've got no problem with canning this topic but I'm not about to allow
the voices of mindless supporters of the current ultra-radical,
right-wing Bush Gang go unanswered, no matter how they try to slip in
their arguments.
If you put in a nasty sig about the Clintons, I would just make a
mental note that you were a mindless idiot and leave it at that. If you
post a nasty off topic note about the Clintons on the list, I'll come
down on you like a ton of bricks.
John Blumel

8) From: Lowe, David
It seems that this attitude is what keeps these sorts of things bouncing back and forth on the list. When it gets to this point I would really prefer that the on list postings be kept away from this sort of antagonistic tone. 
And yes, I do consider it antagonistic when you refer to someone as a "mindless idiot." I happen to know some rather intelligent people that come down on both sides politically and I don't consider any of them to be "mindless idiots" simply because they see things differently than I do. It seems to me that both sides of the political spectrum have their problems and, often, where you land is a matter of which issues you consider to be the most important.
And why is it OK to say something derogatory about the current President but not the former President?
Now lets get back to coffee and coffee roasting.
Dave Lowe

9) From: John Blumel
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:27:46 -0500, John Blumel wrote:
<Snip>
My apologies to the list for this post as the tone and content were not
appropriate on list. 
It was intended to be a private reply but a slip of the mouse resulted
in replying to the wrong address. 
John Blumel

10) From: dewardh
David:
<Snip>
Who said anything "derogatory"?  I saw a sig line with a direct quote of what
the man said . . . has it become "loony left" to quote the President?
Deward

11) From: sho2go
No, only loony to quote the Post......
Mike

12) From: john kangas
Allright, I usually stay out of this kind of thing, I can be a bit blunt.
As far as political beliefs or opinions go, I'm with Voltaire on your right 
to them.
Personal problems are a personal responsibility, don't make it the group's 
responsibility. If it really is about politics, take it up with your 
opponent! That's what politics is about, discussion, debate, possibly even 
the occassional disagreement.
John Kangas
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

13) From: David Westebbe
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
 


HomeRoast Digest