Thread Index

Strathspey List CENSORSHIP

Previous Thread Next Thread Indented

  • ...

    Jim Healy Sept. 26, 2001, 4:07 p.m. (Message 27530)

    Greetings!
    
    I have to disagree with Oberdan on this one, not because I approve of 
    censorship but because I believe Oberdan has confused censorship with 
    censure.
    
    The list exists to discuss all matters related to SCD. That has always been 
    interpeted flexibly and I believe it was Oberdan who argued powerfully for 
    that flexibility in his first posting regarding the person with a most 
    un-American mania for quaint titles. However, said person went beyond the 
    acceptable boundaries of off-subject postings. His views (I have never been 
    sure whether it is a "he" or an agent provocateuse) have been fully aired on 
    Strathspey and there cannot be a member who has not set up a specific filter 
    that is not aware of them - that is not within my definition of censorship. 
    (Presumably, those who have set up a filter did so because they are offended 
    by, or at the very least unintersted in, the views expressed.)  IMO, 
    throwing him off the list is no different to excluding someone who has 
    joined Strathspey and continually tries to raise the subject of Uzbeki 
    dancing. After a reasonable period of tolerance, exclusion is the only 
    answer.
    
    The way I see it, membership of Strathspey is a privilege (it is certainly a 
    privilege to know, virtually, so many keen dancers) and like all privileges 
    can be withdrawn if abused. The subscriber in question abused the terms of 
    membership - goodbye!
    
    Where I do agree with Oberdan is that I think Anselm allowed his 
    exasperation (a term I prefer to "anger") to cloud things just ever so 
    slightly when he threatened all "peepers" with exclusion. I am sure that 
    reflection has not resulted in us losing the views of Ralph or Oberdan for 
    the next month.
    
    Jim Healy
    Perth, Scotland
  • ...

    Simon Scott Sept. 26, 2001, 6:35 p.m. (Message 27535, in reply to message 27530)

    As well as considering Oberdan a friend, I also find his contribution to
    this list valuable, however I must differ from him in this case.  Although a
    small and short off-topic post may be acceptable I think Jim Healy, another
    asset to our group, is on the mark when he says
    
    "person went beyond the acceptable boundaries of off-subject posting"
    
    I support Anslem's action and thank him.
    
    Simon Scott
    Vancouver
  • ...

    Oberdan Otto Sept. 27, 2001, 4:45 a.m. (Message 27544, in reply to message 27530)

    >I have to disagree with Oberdan on this one, not because I approve 
    >of censorship but because I believe Oberdan has confused censorship 
    >with censure.
    ><snip>
    >Where I do agree with Oberdan is that I think Anselm allowed his 
    >exasperation (a term I prefer to "anger") to cloud things just ever 
    >so slightly when he threatened all "peepers" with exclusion.
    
    If I have not yet been booted off, please forgive this clarification, 
    obviously necessary because I was not sufficiently clear before.
    
    It appears that I am not actually confused and that we do not 
    actually disagree.
    
    My objection was to the threatened blanket booting of any peepers.
    
    As for whether the offending individual should have been "censured", 
    I am not qualified to judge, because my own exclusion filter was in 
    place and, thankfully, I was not subjected to the messages that 
    raised Anselm to "exasperation". However, given that I long ago felt 
    it necessary to engage that filter, it is most plausible that, either 
    in specific or in the aggregate, this individual crossed the line of 
    civility and that his removal was warranted.
    
    I also appreciate that in order for Anselm to be there for us and 
    protect us from those who would abuse the list, he cannot do as I 
    have done in engaging a personal filter. He gets the full blast of 
    anything that comes into Strathspey, including gazillions of messages 
    public and private advising him how he should be administering the 
    list. Perhaps we should all back off and let him do what he has 
    already been doing very well.
    
    Oberdan.
    
    184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA
    Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx

Previous Thread Next Thread