Date:         Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:51:52 -0600
Reply-To:     Michael Sullivan <sandwichhead@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Michael Sullivan <sandwichhead@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: List Rating G or PG?
Comments: To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@q.com>
In-Reply-To:  <BLU0-SMTP9905B15289901C71AE518BA66A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

noted.  Thanks Karl.
Michael in San Antonio
91GL AT 'Gringo'
73 Beetle


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@q.com> wrote:

> I would be comfortable with PG, except there is no clear definition of what
> that may be.  It's much easier to enforce a "G" rating, where we all seem
> to
> know what is and is not permissible.
>
> Under earlier regimes, I kinda figure if it was OK on Leno it would be
> acceptable on this list.  Now things are a bit tighter.  I don't have a
> problem with that, though a bit more relaxed would be nice.  I just don't
> want to open the gates to a slew of "F" substitutes.
>
> Didn't we have someone stranded in Effing Ham recently?  Now THAT was
> unacceptable!
>
> ;-)
>
> Karl Wolz
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
> Of
> |Michael Sullivan
> |Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:00 PM
> |To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> |Subject: List Rating G or PG?
> |
> |Not to start anything(really)  but I suggest that this list rating be
> |upgraded from 'G' to 'PG'.  I guess replies should be to the moderators so
> |as not to cause problems, but a vote would be cool.
> |Michael in San Antonio
> |91GL AT 'Gringo'
> |73 Beetle
>
>