Howdy,
 
First of all, my letter to Chris was private, but as it was published,
I feel like I should get a published reply.
 
[Your letter was sent to "ferret-list".  That's public.  Log entry
follows:
 
    Oct 13 16:48   1727 uunet.ca!sti.com!coyote
    /usr/bin/deliver -r 'uunet.ca!sti.com!coyote' 'clewis' 'ferret-digester'
 
Interpretation:
    "Message from uunet.ca!sti.com!coyote, with return address ditto,
    was aliased and delivered to "clewis" and "ferret-digester" which is
    a shell script that formats articles (to be precise, only strips
    extraneous headers like "To: and "Received-by:") and places in the
    next-to-be-sent issue.
 
ferret-request messages get sent to me only.
 
Ie: *you* published it yourself.  It was there when I was checking
it for transmission.  You said nothing in the message about it being
private.  So there was *nothing* to indicate that I should remove
it.  Since you published your initial comments, I exercised my
right of reply.  You started it, not me.]
 
I am upset because Chris replied angrily to a letter asking for ferret
information, telling the author that 'we don't run a consulting
service' or something like that.  I couldn't understand why or how
Chris could tell someone seeking information that no one on the list
would send them a private reply.
 
It seems to me that it doesn't hurt anything to allow people to post
questions without subscribing.  It does add one letter per request
that Chris must process, but those are the trials of a moderator.
 
[The idea I had in mind was simple: I'd subscribe him until
he asked me to unsubscribe.  It's the simplest way.  I believe I had
sent him a mail message to that effect.  Nowhere did I say that
nobody would mail him anything.
 
As far as extra work goes, a moderator only has to take on whatever
work that they feel like.  Those are the trials of a subscriber.
Unless the subscribers pay me to do it - then I have a ethical
obligation to follow the "contract".  However, I have personally
committed myself to an implicit contract that I wrote in the "policy"
I published recently.]
 
Chris' further flippant replies to letters convinced me that the
mailing list [and it's asides in brackets] was something I didn't want
to receive.  I was rather short in my request for termination, which
is something I take responsibility for.  I can easily understand that
my motives were not clear.
 
[What's wrong with the asides in brackets?  If I didn't do it that
way, I'd simply copy your message to another message with preceding ">"
and insert my own comments.  No different.  Just like on USENET.  If
what you're implying is that I take unfair advantage of my position
as moderator in discussions, I demand proof that I've *ever* altered
the content of a message, or cut someone off.  In fact, if I was
forced to insert my messages separately, then I would be perfectly
free to quote you out of context.
 
I have been completely out in the open with *everything* I've ever done.
I have nothing to hide.  Nor do I find it necessary to be anything but
flippant to someone who wants to publically call me a "Tyrannical Dictator".
And I think it's obvious what most people thought of that...
 
If you're seeing flippancy in my other asides, I suggest that you're
simply not recognizing when I'm trying to introduce a little humour.]
 
Nevertheless, despite his statement that he would unsubscribe me, I
remain subscribed.  Since discussion seems to be leading towards an
unmoderated format, I'd like to recind my request and remain on the
list so that I may see what happens.
 
[I'm sorry.  I goofed.  I could have sworn I deleted it after I
sent that issue.  More to the point, however, is that moderation
is part and parcel of the aforesaid policy.  And that autopilot
is only possible whilst I have confidence that the subject matter
will stay within the bounds of the policy - as stated, for example,
in Spafford's mailing list list (which hasn't changed, except for
addresses, since 1988).  Therefore, for demoderation, you will
have to argue against the existing mandate, and the (finally
written down) policy.
 
If you want an unmoderated format where you can say whatever you
want without fear of being cut off for being outside of the mandate,
you already have a forum: rec.pets]
 
And now for some mandatory ferret-related correspondance for those who
have gotten this far... Elsa went through a battery of (very
expensive) tests at the vet's place, and the results for Cushings were
negative.  She remains her staid, old-lady-ferret self, generally
running the house, waking me at 4 in the morning to demand food, and
greeting everyone at breakfast.
 
But she is getting fairly bald.  She has almost no hair on her hind
end, and a light fuzz over the rest of her body, thickening towards
her head.  The effect is fairly unattractive, but of course we love
her still.  I am at a loss as to the next step to take, however.  As
she seems to be in good spirits (just a little mangy), and she is over
9 years old, I am inclined to leave her be.  Does anyone have any
better advice?
 
[When ferrets get older, sometimes the hormones get a little wierd.
Mocha, for example, has gone into heat twice this year.    But she
was spayed 6 years ago.  It was thought it was either ovarian
tissue left behind or Cushings.  Since HCG stopped it, Cushings
was ruled out.  While HCG *might* do something (since hair loss
is also a sign of heat), I would suggest that as long as she
seems happy and healthy to leave her alone.  Tho, you might
want to try adjusting her diet a bit and see if anything happens.
I've seen fur loss in other oldish ferrets.  She's getting elderly.]
 
Ron
 
P.S.  To the gentlewoman from New Jersey who called, I thank you very
      much.  Your advice was well taken, although I'm sorry it didn't
      peg the problem.
 
[Posted in FML issue 0332]