Valdis <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> This is not debate about politics!!!   Two of the directions SNA is going today
> includes military/intelligence apps and corporate decision-making.  This is
> debate about the use of knowledge generated by smart people on this list.
> Charles and Sam are not talking about politics in their posts, they expressing
> concerns about the use of this powerful technology that the SOCNET community
> has invented.  I don't view their posts as SPAM!!!

If you want to talk about SNA and it's relation to politics, I think
that's cool, and can't imagine that others would think that's a
problem.  However, that kind of talk quickly degenerates into talking
about politics itself, which has nothing to do with SNA, and therefore
is not on topic.

The previous outbreak of political discussion was purely politics, and
had nothing to do with SNA, and was not different in any meaningful
way from the political discussion you can get a thousand other places.
Wasserman was right to quash it.  Since his decision was being
criticised in your previous post with:

> > > Right On [as we used to say], Karl!
> > >
> > > Previous attempts at 'silence' on SOCNET:
> > >
> > > > "Please, take these and similar email notes elsewhere. This has nothing to do with SOCNET."

I thought I would defend him, since he was certainly correct.  That
debate was about politics, and it was right to be silenced.