Not to be a language snob or "nit-prickish," but for clarity let's
distinguish between being "elitist" and being "exclusionary." The list
remains a public forum and is by nature a democratic platform, open to
anyone who finds out about it and wants to subscribe. When we say we
would prefer not to have certain people express their opinions on the
list, that may very well be considered elitist, but then we are all
elitist because everyone has preferences. If you say that someone cannot
become a member of the list, then you are being exclusionary and
undemocratic. In a democracy that has freedom of speech, we must tolerate
the bad along with the good--or we don't really have free speech. As an
analogy, I live on a public road. It has been designated a "scenic" road,
yet some people feel free to throw out their beer cans and fast food
containers, while yet others take time out of their lives to join a group
that picks up litter along the road. We are not telling people they can't
join this list, just as I can't keep people from driving on this road
just because we don't value their "litter." At the same time, I'm not
going around town, shouting that I know this really nice scenic road,
which most likely would attract a negative element who enjoys littering
such roads and annoying its inhabitants. (End of analogy.)
Bil
bdwyer@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu