Previous Message Next Message

  • Jim Healy

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

    Re: Strathspey List CENSORSHIP

    I have to disagree with Oberdan on this one, not because I approve of 
    censorship but because I believe Oberdan has confused censorship with 
    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 
    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    can be withdrawn if abused.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
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Previous Message Next Message