By your analogy *all* email on the list is considered as neighbours yelling through bullhorns. Or do you only apply that anology when you're not interested in helping ;)

That's correct. By subscribing to the list, I implicitly grant my neighbors permission to shout through bullhorns *on the specific topic of the list.* It's only when the conversation veers off-topic that the noise becomes annoying.

And for the record, were I fluent in a language other than English, I *would* have been interested in helping, but I still wouldn't feel justified in posting on this topic to the list.

Ah so you do view email lists as people shouting through bullhorns. Intreguing ;)

But the bit that is probably of concern is the fact that you feel *you* "grant" other members of the lsit "permissions" by the fact you subscribe. That implies you have the right to grant permissions, .i.e. you feel you have control (or would like to)

And then you try ot qualify that power you feel you have over others wiht terms of censorship "on the specific topic of the list" as if to claim that you have the right to say what is and isn't on topic.

I think a more laissez faire approach could be taken, especially over a matter of 15 messages total over a couple of days ;)

I neither have nor desire control over others, but I do believe that I should exercise control over my own inbox. In subscribing to a mailing list, I enter into an implied contract: I grant the members of the list access to my inbox and they, in turn, agree to keep the conversation reasonably close to the stated topic of the list.

I think I *was* laissez faire: I didn't say anything about those 15 messages until after someone else had expressed dissatisfaction with the situation. Had the original poster simply apologized and agreed not to do it again, that would have been the end of it. But he *defended* the behavior, leading me to believe that it would continue to be an issue, so I posted the message above. I'm not sure how I could have made it any more respectful or polite.

Phil, it was oyu who said you grant people permission. that's you talking about trying to control what other people do, and that's exactly what oyu tried to do. I think if an apology is in order it should come from you ;)
I think the original poster tried to clarify the situation ot you why colaboration was necessary and how things were workign very smoothly as was. and it should be noted that the original poster from the very outset offered people the choice of using a different form of communication but the community chose to use the list.
The real issue here is that you felt you should dictate to other members of the community what they should do. Let me use your own analagy with some added detail....
There exist a community//neighbourhood where the members gather together to organise street parties. the members were given permission ot use blowhorns to discuss *all things* related to the street party by the local council. A few members of the group including the council officials had put together a deck, a dancefloor for the street party for the benifit of hundreds/thousands of people. The members used the bloghorns to tlak about problems wiht the dancefloor and fixing them. All was well. Then one day one memebr asked for help in makign signs for the dancefloor in the languages of all those people expected to come there. This also went well, and over the period of days members of the community used their blowhorns to let each other know which signs had been made and to collaborate in the correct wording. This was only in the order of an average of 5 in total mesages all day, often just one message by one member followed by an acknowledgment by another, in all totalling only 5 messages a day.
One member of the community who wasn't involved with buildign the dancefloor objected. One of the members who was involved in organising the dancefloor replied and explained why the collaboration was necessary. A second memebr of the community then also chimes in and complains about the five messages per day over the last 3 days, totally ignoring the response already given. In doign so, the people complaining actually added as much noise if not more for that day, all along ignoring the very simple fact is was many members of the community collaborating
And then to top it off the second person later claims the blowhorn messages were off topic yet they were in fact all abotu the street party as was organised by the council that gave them the blowhorns in the first place.
It's very much like those people in the nieghbourhood jsut had nothign better to do. It certainly isn't like there were so many blowhorn messages that nothign else was getting doen. In fact, on some days the 5 or so messages about the dance floor signs was all there was. But if that wasn't bad enogh the second person goes on to claim that those collaborating about the dancefloor need *his permission* to do so.

BTW: the second person definetly was NOT laissez faire. They tried to dictate to the rest of the community about a project they weren't even involved in, and then claimed they needed his permission to talk abotu the dancefloor signs.

Bill: It's clear to me that we will never agree on this issue, so I will post one more comment to you after which you may have the last word, if you wish...

I never claimed that anyone needs my permission to post anything to the list. In fact, the creator of the list posted the following message when the list was inaugurated (edited to maintain confidentiality):

"Hello and welcome to the xx Discussion List. The purpose of this list is to provide a way for insiders such as you to engage with the xx product team and to have discussions regarding the xx product.

"This list is not meant to replace the xx private newsgroup. That remains a great place to have discussions among yourselves about any subject, whether technical or not...This list is for questions or suggestions that you want to address to the xx team. And also for us to ask you questions.

"I don't have a long list of rules for this list, but I do have a few:

"1. Keep your posts focused on questions about [the product]. We want this list to be very useful and the more focused it is, the better.

"2. Keep your answers focused on the question that was asked.

"3. 'Thank you' emails are fine and a nice way to end a conversation. 'Me too' or 'ditto' emails simply clog up our inboxes and aren't needed.

"4. If the conversation starts to veer from the original question, or folks on the list want to debate or discuss, please move the conversation over to the newsgroup. From time to time I will step in as needed and ask you to do this.

"5. Folks who abuse the list will be politely and privately asked to stop. If they consistently abuse the list they will be removed.

"6. I reserve the right to make up other rules as needed. :-)"

I believe that posting to the list indicates an individual's acceptance of the above terms. I do not feel that discussions about translating street party signs fit the stated topic of "discussions regarding the xx product" or "questions or suggestions that you want to address to the xx team." Apparently you feel that they do, and on that point we'll have to agree to disagree.

I was not trying to "control" anyone; I don't own the list, so I'm powerless to do so. All I can do is ask people to abide by the terms specified by the list's owner and hope that they'll be considerate neighbors. What they do from then on is up to them.

Phil, when people are encouraged to use the dancefloor from the product XX site, then I would say it , without doubt, is related to product XX. And really, considerign the surrounds, you should show a lot more faith in the judgment of your fellow community members who were usign the list, related to product XX, and doing so constructively, very constructively.
And I'll repeat this for you yet again, the community was given the otpion to post elsewhere from the very outset, they chose to use the list for convenience and expedience and because they also felt that it was directly related to the community.
I thought it incredibly rude to attack those individuals who were contributing, who posted once or twice in doing so. They gave of their time to help the Product XX community.

Really how can you justify attacking them for a couple of posts, over a handful or posts a day in what was clearly a quiet time. I think that was incredibly rude.

I feel that if a thread does not fit into the topic of your list, then the thread should not be posted in the first place. There are MANY appropriate places to post questions, or ask people for help, and you must be sure to use the most appropriate resource, or you will at best get no help, at worst get kicked off the list...

Just my opinion.

Brendon: I think you are absolutely correct, and that further shows that the post was actually ON topic becuase we had half a dozen people all help. It was incredibly productive IMO (4 different languages added within 15 emails, including corrections and requests for more details !!)

OK, I know I said I would let Bill have the last word, but I just have to ask... ;-)

How was my e-mail (reproduced in its entirety in the body of the post, and the ONLY e-mail I sent on the subject) an "attack?"

Since I have no authority to ban users or do anything else to those who disagree with me, I also don't understand how one could conclude that I believe people "need my permission" to post to the list. I merely expressed an opinion.

IMHO people fall into one of three groups:
1. People who have no concept of "all" and will never use it (my sister always drops everyone from the thread when she replies)
2. People who understand "all" and use it frequently so you can know how smart or generous they are (and so you know they don't care if they waste your time)
3. People who understand "all" and will use it appropriately.

Unfortunately because group 2 is so insecure and in need of ego-stroking they will always diligently defend their right to pollute the public space with their drivel.

Now, that being said, I'm not sure what this all has to do with your alleged involvement with a fascist political party, but I think your post was appropriate. :)

A couple things are clear from reading these comments:

1. Bill likes to argue, and will do so even when he's making no sense (or reeeeally reaching).

2. Any "on-the-fence" opinions I had about Phil's original position were pushed squarely in Phil's camp upon reading Bill's comments.

3. All funnin' aside, I think Phil's point is a solid one, and it applies to the business environment as well. If a question is sent out on a group email, and the Reply All's reach a certain intangible point, it's ok for someone to ask the folks interested in the thread to take it offline. Otherwise the group runs the risk of losing the larger interest.

4. A 'request' is not the same as 'granting permission', and is a far cry from Nazism.

5. Adding a winky-smilie at the end of a obnoxious statement does not make the statement any less obnoxious.