I guess I'm a little confused.
I find it interesting that the only comments I've heard from Mr. Cato are those that were posted by Ann and others in the past. As Ann pointed out "It is interesting to note that he usually sends his comments only to the originator of the email that he finds offensive."
On at least one occasion, I've responded to someone else's remarks on the listserv (since they posted to the listserv and not just to me) only to be told to post only to that person and not the listserv. Isn't that what Mr. Cato has done?
If we don't agree w/ one another's opinions then either present an alternative viewpoint or ignore that person (as Wyatt suggested).
As far as Mr. Cato's being "an affective tool in drumming support to stop the discussion on GRRN, of the ramifications of whether to actually count all the Florida votes or not", I can only suggest that we all think for ourselves.
His statements have been deemed "inflammatory and unnecessary" and they may very well be. But what about the responses to him? I see:
"Cato is the lowest of the low on the Planet"
"ravings of a bigoted excuse of a human being"
"mind is so twisted that he would put a double helix screw to shame"
"idiots like Cato"
"minds are so narrow they fit within a pencil line with ease"
"space to oxygen thieves"
"throwbacks to mental disorders of the past"
Harldy necessary nor non-inflammatory. Do we oust these people as well?
Should we oust all those who differ in opinion? It's one thing if he's anti-EVERYTHING that GRRN stands for, but to differ on some things?
Please note that I am not defending Mr. Cato nor his opinions because except for what others have posted, I don't even know what they are.
But if we're going to oust a person based upon his individual replys to a couple people, we should see their replys to him as well.
Thanks for your ear,