Two years ago Rudy Maceyko told me (in response to a similar kind of complaint) that there were 524 subscribers to the list, and there are likely about the same number now. I was amazed at the number of people who chose to email me in response to that post - probably as many as would respond if I had posted that there was a new Mercedes in my driveway and the first to email me could pick up the keys and the title, for free!

The emails were quite a response, as one might expect from over 500 people who are probably a community cross-section. Probably representative numbers did not comment at all, congratulated me (even applauded), others think that we should all be happy and tell each other how happy we are (that's a paraphrase, but not far off), and others don't have a clue.

I gave a great deal of thought today to a follow-up post based in part on the variety of email I received, and then decided against anything more than this post. As many knew, it was the prosyletizing post concerning the absolutely silly CeaseFire ordinance that broke the camel's back for me, but I decided that even if I publicly reduced it to its absurdity the cross section of subscribers would respond in the same way - those that congratulate, cheer and applaud, those that think I'm in favor of shooting kids, and, yes, those that don't have a clue. In the end, I would be adding nothing because even the self-appointed censors (they prefer the term "moderators) don't have a clue since, in the end, it is their list, not ours, and they can run it however they like, and do.

Lest I be seen as too critical, let me be clear about one thing. I think the ListServe is a tremendous community asset - underutilized, but a tremendous asset nonetheless. I realize that Rudy and Bob are volunteers - a point that they make quickly, as do others on their behalf, but a point which, in my mind, does not result in immunity from criticism, although almost all volunteers think it does.

Without hashing out the precise complaints I would make, let me say merely that I belong to many, many good lists in my professional life and they all share one thing in common - a clearly defined and stated terms of service as to what the purpose of the list is, what actions are offensive and will result in persons being removed or their posts not published, and what posts are considered off-subject. Without identifying the author, my views were best stated by one subscriber who wrote this morning, "I was raised to keep politics, religion and money conversations out of social gatherings, and situations such as this where there may be mixed feelings." Among the the terms of service, I, personally, would include posts recruiting political workers, contributions (monetary or in-kind), as well as any post that disparages a national organization (which probably has a number of members in the neighborhood), provides "talking points" to tell those of us who are stupid how to think and to urge any governmental body to take unconstitutional action that is silly and, if taken, is most likely to result in costing hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to defend that action, and, in the end, lose. But if that makes everybody happy, we should certainly tell each other that - no?

And, a note to the many who emailed me to congratulate me or applaud my simple post and who knew exactly what I was referring to. The moderators don't have a clue as what my post was about (and they both expressed such), perhaps it would help if others told them. Although you may think it more neighborly, the fact is, that, as some of you said, hitting the delete key, not reading the posts, or unsubscribing, does not help make the list the kind of community asset that it actually is, or what it could be.

Perhaps one of the most surprising things expressed by a number of subscribers was the belief that subscribers can post anything, and that they do (as evidenced by some of the posts that we see), and that the moderators publish everything that anyone posts (also as evidenced by some of the posts that we see). The fact is that the list is moderated in one sense, and certainly censored in yet another.

P.S. I might add, for those who really don't get my point and are easily distracted, that I do not own a gun and am not a member of the NRA. I do, however, respect the Constitution and the court which interprets it, and I have more than enough political experience to know that defending it takes a mighty effort and is frequently unpopular with those who have other agendas.