Yes, I do read the whole thing. And yet, you choose also choose to reply
to only part of the message! What about not declaring something to be a
problem until it becomes one? Two (2) posts do not a problem make--in my
book.
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]
 
 
On Sun, 26 Feb 1995, John Floyd, SUNY Buffalo Anthropology wrote:
 
> Do y'all actually read messages before you reply them?
>
> Consider the following message again after re-reading the message it was
> replying to:
>
> > In regards to the recent post about religion and politics having no place
> > on the list....
> > Well, maybe.
> > But what about when they impinge on archaeology? Like legislation or
> > controversies over [put a religion here] burial excavations or a host of
> > other topics?  And what about archaeologists interested in research on
> > the politics and religions of the past?
>
> > It is not as easy as saying leave politics and religion out of it.
>
> > In the public forum, archaeologists have to deal with both of these
> > issues, especially in North America.  It would be a mistake to exclude
> > these issues from discussion.
>
> Message above was responding to this message:
>
> > In reply to the comments being made about the "alleged" voting down of
> > the 4th amendment: I've found the two topics which cannot usually be
> > dealt with in a public forum without it degrading into a shouting match
> > is personal preferences in (1) religion, and (2) politics.  This is
> > an archaeological list discussion group. Unless directly related to
> > archaeological concerns, let's try to keep these 2 topics off the
> > list, hey?
> >
>
> Note the bit about "unless directly related to archaeological concerns."
>
> But what's the use, the "Repliers" will have already fired off a dozen
> postings without getting to that last sentence.
>
>                                         John
>