Dear Mattis, I acknowledge that in my attempts at being a bit too subtle, my post ended up suggesting just the very opposite of what I had hoped to. I failed miserably. I just did not wish to be the one saying to Colin to take his grievances against Scottie off-list. I could have responded to him off-list, I guess, but since the post was on-list, it seemed appropriate to address it here. And to let the result be an illustrative example of where it could go. But you are so very right to point out the inherent pitfalls of such an approach. In short, what I was trying to say in a very convoluted way was that generally the list does tend to find some sort of an equilibrium on its own. That no one is, or could be, allowed to behave abominably. And that consequently, or even otherwise, no one does. That there are built-in safe-guards to prevent things from reaching an abysmal low, particularly in view of the fact that the list enjoys such voices of reason as yours -- and such limpid prose style too! (Ah, does flattery get one anywhere nowadays, he wondered...) I couldn't agree more with you when you say -- > in general become a topic of discussion. I would prefer if people > would try to air their greivances privately and believe that a large > percentage of the time this will lead to better mutual understanding. and "privately" in my reading would mean exchange of email between the (real or perceived) ridiculee (ridiculed at?) and the ridiculor, the sneeree (or sneerer? or sneeror?) and the sneered at -- keeping referral to the list-owner as a last recourse, who in any case would deem it fit to interfere if things were going out of hand. Our list-owner, I am happy to note, could be only, if anything, accused of being too liberal and tolerant. May his ankle heel soon! A very peevish sonny who is "just a cowed-down victim of Scottie's sneers" reciprocating the wishes for a happy week-end to you and all, too, PS: I will air my other grievances privately...