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] >