[Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 75

[Chan Fu]

On 10/12/05, Andrew Skilton <skiltonat at cardiff.ac.uk> wrote:
> Wed, 12 Oct 2005  "Richard P. Hayes"  wrote:
>
> >> But is Buddha-l a Buddhist environment? With recent revision of the
> >> 'constitution' and from observed practice, Buddha-l is pretty much anything
> that
> >> the moderators (and some contributors) want it to be.
>
> >It is was contributors want it to be. Hardly any moderation is done (or
> >needed), since this list has shown itself to be stable and well behaved.
>
> This is a fair response and corrects my assumption of a higher degree of
> moderation than is actually performed. And it is one of the successes of
> Buddha-l that it remains stable, pretty well-behaved and interesting.
>
> > Surely the only way to change the style of the list is to be a regular
> >contributor. I anyone wishes to set a different tone than the one that
> >they see here, all they need do is to write in the tone they like. If
> >others like it, they will respond in kind. There is probably no other
> >way to achieve change on a mostly unmoderated list.
>
> I agree!
>
> Andrew

You could be wrong. Evolution is tricky
and no external intelligent rule sets
seem to apply. Such is not the case here.