That depends entirely on what they're trying to stop. No hope is necessary. He has shown that he can. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is

"... There's NO reason..."

Mark, <What changes would you propose?>>> You beat me to this as I was composing the below. Please consider a policy along the lines of "IO supports organizations whose missions are the betterment

Mark, Mention has been made here by at least one person (possibly more) of a "necessity for more free speech rather than less". This seemed to be a not-so-subtle allusion to recently imposed - and

Hi Shal, Is the issue more that a group that perhaps not all of your members like is mentioned on the pricing page, or is it that I would support that group at all (myself and Groups.io being

Once again: could you please lay off the politics? It is becoming too hard not to counter these kinds of blatantly political statements. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author,

No, it is not "true." It is your opinion. And that's precisely why I did not quote you originally: to avoid this kind of substantive political discussion. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the

And it's an equivalency that no one is making but you. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human

Ok I get the point. Don’t pike on meaningless “me too, three” posts if it’s a software feature, but do so if it’s discussing a policy. Ya. Really? Yes, that characterization of the

Maria Caps for emphasis. Three words I believe? Certainly not intended to be inflammatory, but if taken that way PLEASE (LOL) substitute an underline or bold for caps. Theres a huge difference

Ken, Agree that discussion here should focus on the merits ( or demerits) of a feature - or policy - and suggestions regarding these. That said - and I usually try to keep my contributions focused

Many people support causes they believe in, and many company owners do so through their company. In Mark's case the easiest and probably most effective way for him to do that is by offering a

Hi Mark, There really is no way to prevent this as long as there are multiple owners of a group. One possible deterrent would be to not allow an owner to be deleted by a single owner, i.e. two

Hi Mark, Just proves you're human!! Ken "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the

Nobody said it was wrong to raise this issue here. I and a couple of others were pointing out that Mark's asking not to debate the value of features applies to features. He did not say not to debate

<<<It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. >>> I believe that you missed my point on my follow up. I

I personally would like to see a rule that the original owner that started the group on groups.io can’t be removed by any co-owner because there are some power hungry people out there that want to

I'm all about simple. Mr. X, if ever an actual owner, would have been required to assign Mr. Y as a second owner in order for Mr. X to be removed because it is not possible for a moderator to do so.

Mark; I think Bruce may have a good point there. Perhaps it depends on the scale of the problem; you will have a clearer view based on the traffic incoming to "support" than the members of beta or the

What about group owners having "groups.io living wills"? I don't see any other way around the situation where an owner *legitimately* goes missing or gets hit by the proverbial truck. Group owners