On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:
Fair enough. I agree with the idea in spirit. However, care must be taken to define acceptable criteria.
Oh, absolutely. Escalation is not something that should be taken lightly. e.g. for MAPS, escalation was (is?) only used as a last resort.
I think the concerns here (at least my concerns) are that a) some organizations do it before exhausting other avenues, and b) the avenues for removal from such listings can be difficult to nonexistent (as is the case with SPEWS, from the sound of it).
Agreed.
I think one must be cautious to avoid seeking vengeance on something whose mere existence bothers them,
Yes. There are well-documented cases of people getting into trouble when they let their personal opinions and emotions get in the way of running such a list.
Agreed. However, my impression from the initial post(s) in this thread is that the specific list(s) in question have not been doing this.
Yup. I think we have to be careful not to let this thread go completely off-topic. I think I'm going to do a little more research before posting further on the topic, though. As I said, I've never been in a situation where I have to ask SPEWS to delist me. -- Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET - I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder - 6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...