Reef Fish wrote:

I really wish this thread would go away, but this post draws me out.

> I must offer you a second opinion, Dr. Wallace, to your diagnosis.
> If you go back to the START of the RFD thread, you'll note that in spite
> of his under-the-table sessions with Hugh before the initial post (the
> conspiracy),

It was not before the initial conspiracy, only before the existing
conspiracy became public.  There were several people complaining in private
and trying to enlist more influential list members in their cause.  The
problem started in secret several months before it surfaced in public.  I
received several private posts asking me to join.  My response then was the
same as it would be now.  Censorship is not an acceptable option.  If you
don't like posts by Bob or anyone else, tell them so, delete them, or add
them to your kill file, but don't expect me to join in any attempt to deny
them their right to post as they chose.

> Nick acted admirably well and properly, expressing that he
> wanted opinion/votes and even when the tide turned against what they
> planned (nobody wanted to censor anyone), Nick even admitted that
> probably nothing would of the RFD, and acted moderately and properly.
> The voice of the voting majority has been heard.

An accurate recollection of the initial stages of the process.

> It was only a day or so before the "Tuesday massacre" that Nick turned
> ugly (out of frustration of the continuing tide against his idea of
> censorship) that he slapped his heavy hand.

I can be more specific than that.  It was the day after you returned from a
dive trip.  The group was handling the issue and it was well on its way to a
quiet death.  You and your right to speak as you chose were being well
supported and defended by those who could do so without fanning the embers
into the flame that eventually burned Nick, the list and, to a lesser
degree, all of us who abandoned the list we enjoyed so much.  When you
returned, you simply could not let others handle it and, in your unique
style, you heated things up, particularly for Nick until he reacted in the
worst way he could.  While I asked you to let us handle it, I understand
that you could not and do not wish to even hint that joining the fray was
not your right.  It is my perception that your posts inflamed a situation
that might otherwise have never come to a head, but that's a risk you take
in return for the freedom to speak your mind.  You can't have it both ways.
You want freedom, you accept the risk that it will have results you'd prefer
to have avoided.  So Nick reacted in a way that many of us found
unacceptable, we left, and the rest is history, or should be.  Done is done.
There's enough blame for everyone, but, in my opinion, no benefit from
harping on it.  It's over.  I'll continue to follow my own advice, comment
on what I don't like (usual) or delete what I chose not to comment on
(occasionally).

> Given this "non-medical history", Nick's health did not turn in a day
> or two (except perhaps his mental health).

Nick's medical situation may have helped color his reaction to events, but,
in my opinion, was not the cause or basis for the, in my opinion,
unacceptable action he took and continues to take.

Lee