Thanks for the comments. I was stymied as to how to react, since my level
of experience is far below the average on this list. Personally, I find the
Ravelympics case to be particularly egregious,
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>precisely
because it is so apparently innocuous, and because Ravelry complied without
a squeak.

If anyone has not yet read the article, I recommend it:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/7212016/Stitch-up-for-Olympic-knitters

I also think Bill Drake's idea of a knit-in is a solid, simple
demonstration of disagreement.

Cheers,
Ginger
**
**



On 7 July 2012 07:54, Norbert Klein <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks, Carlos, for the reminder - which highlights the IOC issue well -
> and I also want to say that I on a similar line with Tamir.
>
> Norbert Klein
>
> =
>
> On 7/7/2012 5:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> Regarding Carson's unprofessional overreaction to a list thread -- which
>> involved a legitimate criticism of objectionable practices by the IOC
>> --, I see discussion lists as conversations, not as ritual engagements.
>> Just in case, I recall the link which motivated this discussion:
>>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-**style/7212016/Stitch-up-for-**
>> Olympic-knitters<http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/7212016/Stitch-up-for-Olympic-knitters>
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 07/03/2012 07:23 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking as someone who does not regularly comment here (but does
>>> regularly
>>> follow discussions), I just wanted to say that I personally find
>>> discussions
>>> here neither 'spammy' nor 'unprofessional'.
>>>
>> [snip]
>