At 12:29 AM 12/27/97 -0500, Kathleen Bruce wrote:
>That subscriber, by the way, is nomail, and has not responded to my note
>telling her *again* about the rules, and the consequences of breaking them.

I'd be thankful she's nomail and not responding.  But I'm a firm believer
in letting sleeping dogs lie.  Or the female of dogs if appropriate.  (as a
breeder, I don't consider bitch a dirty word, but know others do)

>We do not have a piece in our rules about subscribers getting reinstated if
>20% of the subscribership votes them back in after being unsubscribed for
>breaking rules. Do most of you have that clause in your welcome notes
>enabling problem subscribers to lobby and get back on?

I've never heard of such rules, but my philosophy is a bit different than
yours, I believe.  I'm in charge of the rules, I make them, I enforce them,
I interpret them.  The rules may not be discussed on list, though I'm
always glad to have input by private email.

On a list where it is "democratic" like yours, such might be appropriate.

cheers

dan


Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA 208-383-0165
[log in to unmask]   http://www.84.com/  (check out our 1997 holiday letter)

http://library.idbsu.edu/   http://cyclops.idbsu.edu/ http://www.lili.org/
Sent me a postcard of a library yet?  You'll get something nice in return.