strathspey@strathspey.org:27530

Jim Healy

Re: Strathspey List CENSORSHIP

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can be withdrawn if abused.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