Thread
Index
Strathspey List CENSORSHIP
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is a privilege (it is certainly a privilege to know, virtually, so many keen dancers) and like all privileges can be withdrawn if abused.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
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
>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