Up to a point, that's true; and if it didn't get past that point, I
 wouldn't have a problem with it. But you and I both know that these
 things escalate way past the point where they do anyone any good. The
 thread you're talking about, for example, brought a whole slew of mostly
 identical responses where one would've done just as well.

I'll concede your point about this. I WAS getting pretty tired by the time the
eighth e-mail mentioning William Gibson showed up.
  

 As for the Ryoga thread (one of the ones that Lurker and I were
 complaining about), I don't think it really benefitted anybody.
 Everybody knew that what you actually said was wrong, and I think we all
 agree that what you had *meant* to say was correct, once we understood
 what you had actually meant. I don't think anyone's mind was changed
 about Ryoga. The real problem was that people were replying to your post
 without first reading the followups, and so we had about 20 people
 saying the same thing.

I think the problem here is that it's frustrating to read a post, read all the
'Re:' messages abvout the post, and then present your own opinion. It's much
quicker and easier to just read something and slap out a response, which is an
irresponsible on a posters part IMHO. 
  

 Merc, we all know how you feel about Tybalt. Here's your chance to
 strike the best blow you can *against* list moderation. Let's prove that
 we don't *need* a Tybalt because we're capable of keeping the spam down
 to a reasonable level VOLUNTARILY.

I don't have a problem with list moderation per se: I have a problem with
Tybalt's style of command and his attitude. And I do think that the it's been
kept to a reasonable level, in spite of big T's apparent absence.

Anybody know anything about that, BTW? Generally, when a thread gets far
enough along that people start debating whether or not it's still viable and
if Tybalt should/should've/is going to/ do something about, he... well, does
something about it. Especially in the case of repeat offenders like myself.