... I'd like to get some feedback from the group. I've placed Brendan on moderation. He hasn't violated any rules other than trash quoting. But there is something about his participation which may not seem helpful. I don't want to adopt a rule that limits participation for what we might call qualitative reasons. But it does seem that a certain number of his offerings would be better served if they weren't so ... well ... enthymematic. I'm thinking specifically here of one sentence posts ending in question marks, Jackie Chan videos, etc. It hasn't been all of the posts, of course -- a few have generated useful discussion. But like I say, I need help on this one. Can anyone out there lend me some advice? I think it probably should be public inasmuch as I am seeking input at the level of policy. What is the right thing to do? Should the list have absolutely no qualitative considerations? Am I off base here? What rule could be fashioned? It can't be a rule against the number of offerings (that won't be a good rule). It must have something to do with communicating in an articulate fashion and perhaps being cognizant of what impulses are better left not pursued. You know, moderation wouldn't be a bad thing if it taught something helpful. (Imagine half of the posts going back for reformulation). What should be the policy for this? Once again, do others think that I am wrong with thinking in this direction? How about this? Too many "loose" or fragmented mails = penalty for too many men on the field? Or if it badly needs rewritten, we could call a false start? Yours grasping at straws and in great anticipation of football tomorrow. P.S. -- I'll be in late, so I won't see this stuff until Sunday evening. Do what you can to root for the Steelers. Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. Assistant Professor Wright State University Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860 Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html