This exchange is a good, if harmless, example of what I was cryptically addressing in a recent post to Starchild on the list, when I was questioning our reliance on formalisms. Here is Michael Edelstein, an anarchist of all things, wanting to know what the _rules_ are for OT use of the list. Chris, in his response, strikes exactly the right note, in my view, reminding him (and the rest of us): "We are all responsible adults who believe that society can operate moderately well without a government telling us what to do. Let's
try to prove that that can work. (-:" Anyone who has attended an LPSF business meeting or an LP convention knows how obsessed libertarians are with rules. Steve Alexander once complained, after interminable debate about minutiae of the by-laws at an LPC convention, that we were going to end up with the best by-laws in the gulag. It's enough to make one want to appeal to common sense and respect for others, especially when you know that any rule that is formulated is going to be debated to death or modified or withdrawn in any contentious application. I think there's a lesson to be drawn from libertarians' (including some anarchists') attachment to rules, but I'm not sure I'm ready to draw it.