--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Chris and Josette Borland
<candjborland_at_...> wrote:
d> Thanks Bill,
>
> I didn't want to want to get walked all over by Mark for
bringing
> up the subject of legality. >
Chris,
Groupwise, it's fine for a modeler (you) to help another modeler
understand an ALREADY accepted rule, or an already accepted
interpretation of a rule. A couple of you have told me this is
inconsistent with the "No Rules Debate" OT policy. But I see a big
difference between normal everyday clarification, and a debate.
Another way to look at it--what a rule "is" is fair to describe. How
you think something "ought to be" usually ends up a debate.
More housekeeping,
If such OT policy is just too anal, I am willing to accept the
failure of Indoor_Construction as an indoor resource, and will
readily pull the plug. After the first week :^)) I have had very
little ego involved in being moderator. A hope or vision, yes, but
not a "power trip," as I have been told I am on.
(BTW, I love a fair debate--it helps clarify opinions, and I do it in
private emails, with those I think are interested. Sometimes they
aren't, and I learn *other* lessons! OT musing, there.)
Anyone building new models?
Mark F1diddler
Received on Sun Feb 19 2006 - 12:18:21 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:44 CET