When Pubes put up that ‘War’ post,
I got involved early and followed it
for some days. Reason: I did not know
enough about the area and its people.
Who was who, what was what etc.
The responses were not ‘mass media’
generated — tho’ I am sure some were
so influenced — These were real people, talking from their hearts and minds,
not a bunch of reporters on some agenda
or another. I learned far more than I
would have had Pubes or someone else NOT
put that post up.

A little more background: Some of us
know a little bit about the regulars
who inhabit this space —- I have,
from time to time, gone to the ID page
to get an idea of who the poster is,
to get a better idea on his/her viewpoint
—- But mostly, I see you guys as a relatively amorphous mix of people.
I could name two or three people on this
site who I do know a little more about,
but no more than that.

The two sides to this question, then, are:

Not knowing quite who/where somebody is and hence, having no preconceived notions about that person, it is easier to be more objective, thereby gaining a better understanding of the facts , OR,

A better knowledge of who/where we are, what we do etc., might explain things more fully,
as to why we think the way we do. We have confidence in our abilities to filter out bias’ that may be inherent.

I thought about the about the latter when Pubes first put his post up.

In retrospect, I am more inclined to go with the former: NOT knowing a lot about people resulted in a better understanding of the whole thing for me.

Before you reply as to who/what/where you are, I propose we put the matter
to a vote:

I vote we remain relatively ‘anonymous’ —- contact particular people by e-mail —- if, and when, necessary.

So, what side are you on? Warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely with an open mind or,
iconoclastic, self-reliant, private stay outta my face and I will keep an open mind?

Criticism that the two sides are ‘arbitrary’ is justified, Feel free to rephrase it
as long as its original connotations stay intact.

Peace, dammit!

[This message has been edited by topoftheworld (edited 16 April 1999).]

[This message has been edited by topoftheworld (edited 17 April 1999).]